IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 30th day of November, 2023.
Filed on 25.05.2023
Present
- Smt.P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President in Charge )
- Smt C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)
CC/No.133/2023
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri. Vishnukumar.P.S 1. The Managing Director
Patheechirayil House GREEN PLANET, 16/29 C.
Thathampally.P.O NH-66, Poomkavu,
Alappuzha-688013 Alappuzha-688008
(Party in person)
2. Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd,
57, Udyog Vihar Phase IV, Sector -18
Gurugram-122015, Haryana
O R D E R
SMT.C.K.LEKHAMMA (MEMBER)
1. Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:-
The complainant purchased a photon scooter, manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, from the 1st opposite party, the dealer on 5/9/2022. The complainant alleged that within 2 months of purchase, the vehicle showed various defects. There is an unbearable sound emitting from the handle of the vehicle. Eventhough the 1st opposite party had repaired the vehicle several times, the same defect was persisting and still the defect has not been rectified. Further, defect in the tyre was brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party but they never took any step to replace the same. Further, it was noticed within one month of purchase that the cable passing through the hole in the front side of the mudguard was in a damaged condition due to rubbing it the hole and was communicated to the 1st opposite party, but instead of replacing the damaged cable, they taped the insulation cable and gave back the vehicle to the complainant. Further averred that within 2 months after the purchase of vehicle, it showed motor complaint and the same was replaced and there was a delay of 15 days for replacement. During this period the opposite party did not make other alternative arrangements. The complainant alleged the above defects are manufacturing defects of the vehicle so he requested the opposite parties to replace the vehicle. But the opposite party turned a deaf ear to the complaints of the complainant. The damage in the mudguard was brought to the notice of the 1st Opposite Party but the 1st opposite party was not ready and willing to rectify the defect. Finally, the complainant sent a complaint to the 2nd opposite party on 13/3/2023 and only after that it was replaced .
The complainant is a Civil Police Officer, on 10/5/2023 while going for attending an official meeting, the vehicle suddenly turned off and it was informed to the 1st opposite party and they took the vehicle. After 2 days the 1st opposite party informed that the battery of the vehicle became damaged and it would take 45 days to replace the same. Then the complainant requested them to make available a spare battery but the opposite parties informed that it was not possible since 2 batteries in their possession are in use. Moreover, the opposite party said that the battery is unusable because it used less than 72 amperes. The complainant alleged that at the time of purchase the staff of the 1st opposite party informed that the battery can be used up to 83.42 to 69 amperes. Further averred that he bought the vehicle because the opposite party made him believe that the scooter can be driven 90 kms on a single charge. Further alleges that , the Ist opposite Party suppressed the actual mileage of the vehicle and sold the vehicle to him only to increase the marketing. The complainant alleges that the vehicle sold to him was one with manufacturing defect . The above acts of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service and hence filed this complaint with a prayer to refund the price of the vehicle, compensation for deficiency in service and also claiming the cost of the proceedings.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party is as follows:-
The 1st opposite party denied the allegation against them in the complaint and contented that they are the authorized dealer of the 2nd opposite party, the manufacturer. It is true that the complainant purchased an electric scooter (Photone) from the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party provided a 3-year warranty on the battery of the vehicle. As a dealer, they act as an intermediary between the complainant and the manufacturer are their functions are subject to the conditions, instructions and policies of the 2nd opposite party company. As soon as the complainant approached the opposite parties with various complaints it was rectified with replacement of the parts under warranty according to the availability of parts.
On 10/3/2023, this opposite party inspected the vehicle and found the battery of the vehicle in a damaged condition and the complaint was informed about this and this information was reported to the 2nd opposite party to replace the battery under warranty. Further informed the complainant that it would take 30 to 45 days to get a new battery. So this opposite party was ready to solve the problem temporarily by arranging with a spare battery, but the complainant was not interested. On the contrary, the complainant insisted on refunding the price of the vehicle. Being a dealer this opposite party is only liable to rectify the defects under warranty and this opposite party is ready and willing to rectify the defects of the vehicle at any time. Even if it is assured that the vehicle will get 108 km mileage, there may be a difference of up to 25% percentage depending on the conditions mentioned in the service book (manual). The service book was issued to the complainant at the time of purchase of the vehicle. It has been mentioned in the service book that the battery will be consumable and its capacity and mileage will vary according to the use and has been brought to the attention of the complainant. The said mileage was tested and approved by the ARAI the agency of Government and issued certificate to that effect. The complainant was directly informed about the usage and charging of the battery. It was convinced to the complainant that after using the vehicle for 50 km to 60 km the battery should be charged. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party.
3. 2nd opposite party filed version contending as follows:-
It is true that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the 1st opposite party on 26/8/2022. This opposite party is a prominent company and gives all the sales and service support to their customers as per the Automobile policy. It is pertinent to mention that since the date of purchase of the vehicle the complainant has neither given any complaints to the manufacturer regarding any issue with vehicle. As the complainant mentioned the front mudguard broken and noise came from handle. They are ready to replace the new mudguard and rectify the front handle complaint. The tyre is warranted by vender. So this opposite party have forwarded this complaint to the vendor and also, they are taking steps to replace the tyre. As for the motor complaint they require minimum 10 to 15 days transit time as this item is required to reach to Kerala. For new battery replacement, it will take minimum of 45 days because the battery supply chain is very low it takes about one and a half months to clear battery issues. In this case, they can take action to replace a battery as soon as possible. Therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and hence the complaint is to be dismissed.
4. Points that arise for consideration are :-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs as sought for?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency in service?
3. Reliefs and costs?
5. Complainant appeared in person, he adduced oral as well as documentary evidence Ext.A1 to A5 were marked. Further PW2 ,the commissioner was examined and report was marked as Ext.C1. From the side of the opposite parties RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ext.B1 was marked. Heard both sides.
6. Points Nos. 1&2:-
The case of the complainant is that he purchased the disputed Electric Scooter, manufactured by the 2nd opposite party, from the 1st opposite party, the dealer. The complainant alleged that within two months of purchase, the vehicle showed various defects. The motor of the vehicle was replaced within two months after continuous complaints made by the complainant and took 15 days for replacement. During this period opposite parties did not make any alternative arrangements and had taken an adament stand that there was no provision to arrange an alternate vehicle to be used for the said period. Another allegation is that there is an unnatural sound emitting from the handle of the vehicle which was brought to the attention of the 1st opposite party. Further brought the attention of the 1st opposite party about the wear and tear on one side of the front tire but till date, they have not taken any steps to replace the same. The mudguard of the vehicle was also replaced but the opposite parties did not replace the defective cable. The complainant alleged said defects occurred due to the manufacturing defects of the vehicle. On 10.5.2023 while driving, the vehicle stopped on the road due to battery damage. The complainant averred that at the time of booking the vehicle, the opposite parties assured that the vehicle can be driven about 107 km on a single charge and also mentioned in the service book that 108 km/charge. At the time of booking and delivery of the vehicle, the opposite parties gave information that the battery could be used from 83.4 to 69 amperes under the above impression, the complainant purchased the vehicle. But now the opposite parties have taken a stand that the battery was damaged because the same was used below 72 amperes. The complainant alleges the purpose of such wrong information is to accelerate the sale of the vehicles. In the above circumstances, this complaint is filed seeking the refund of the price of the disputed vehicle and compensation. Opposite parties denied the allegations levelled against them and contended that whenever the complainant approached with complaints of the vehicle, the same were rectified with replacement of the parts under warranty. They tried to rectify the defects several times. They are always ready to rectify the alleged defects of the vehicle but with regard to the replacement of the battery a minimum of 45 days is required since the battery supply chain is very low. It was rightly communicated to the complainant.
Admittedly, the motor and mudguard of the vehicle were replaced. The complainant alleged that such defects on the motor appeared within two months after the purchase and the same was replaced on 18.1.2023. Even though the complainant brought attention of the 1stopposite party, to the damage of the mudguard they did not care to attend the said complaint. At last, the mudguard was replaced only after giving the Ext.A4 complaint to the 1st opposite party. As per Ext. A1 the Tax Invoice dtd. 26.8.2022. Based on the evidence adduced it is revealed that the above defects occurred within a short period from date of purchase. Pw2, the Commissioner reported about wear and tear of the front tyre, battery damage and emission of abnormal sound while driving the vehicle. According to PW2, the abnormal sound can be removed by dismantling the front part of the vehicle as such and refitting it. Both Opposite parties admitted the damage to the battery and tyre of the vehicle and they are ready to replace those and ready to rectify other defects. Further reported the wear and tear of the break cable and speedometer cable and suggested that these defects can be rectified only by replacing the same. In re-examination of Pw2, who deposed that said cable that came out through the hole of the mudguard was damaged due to friction and further answered affirmatively that if the vehicle is left unused there is a possibility of damage to its charger and controller. Further Pw2 deposed in cross-examination “ Cu hml-\-¯nsâ battery, brake cable, front tyre F¶nh replace sNbvXv front portion reset sNbvXm hml\w perfect condition  BIp-a-tÃm.(Q) C1 ]d-ªn-«pv (A)” On perusal of evidence as such it is found that the vehicle has not only the damage of tyre and battery but also some other complaints. Therefore, we are of the considered view that both opposite parties are liable to rectify the entire defects of the vehicle forthwith under warranty.
We have already discussed earlier that within a short period after the purchase, the vehicle suffered various defects and made some repairs. It seems that due to this the complainant was unable to use the vehicle. It is to be noted that the complainant is a civil police officer. The complainant alleged that the purpose of purchasing the vehicle was for travelling to his office, but due to the constant repairs and breakdowns, it has not been able to be used. The opposite parties contended that the replacement of the battery would take nearly 45 days. But nothing is before us to show that opposite parties have taken any steps to make available a spare battery till the arrival of a new battery or other alternative arrangements. Further, the complainant argued that at the time of booking the vehicle, opposite parties believed him that he could drive the vehicle 90 km on a single charge and the battery could be used up to 83.4 to 69 amperes. Now the opposite parties changed their stand and argued that the defect in the battery occurred due to the same being used below 72 amperes. It is pertinent to note the allegation of the complainant that though the charging of the battery is the most important, the ops did not provide any written direction to their customers. The ops have taken a stand that they have given instructions to the customers directly. It seems that the charging period of the battery is one of the important factors in its life, the ops failed to provide such written instructions to the complainant. Further, disputed the mileage of the vehicle, RW1, the representative of the 1st opposite party pointed out the mileage assured by the Company is the mileage tested and certified by the ARAI, the Government Agency and it is specifically mentioned in Ext. B1 , the technical specification that “ Range mentioned is as per IDC tested at ARAI with Single Rider. Practical range may vary around 25% based on road speed, acceleration and braking, battery charge and battery aging, tyre pressure and maintenance of vehicle etc. # The customer should use both batteries, using one battery and not using the other battery while keeping it in discharged state will deteriorate the unused battery” and also mentioned in Ext. A5, the service book that there is a possibility to vary practical range based on road speed, acceleration and braking battery charge battery age, pressure and maintenance of the vehicle etc. It is understood from the above information that the mileage of the vehicle may vary based on various factors.
In view of the aforementioned discussions, it is revealed that the frequent defects and subsequent repairing caused mental agony to the complainant which is attributed to deficiency in service. It is to be noted that the 1st opposite party, the dealer cannot stay away from the responsibility. Therefore, both opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
7. Point. No.3:-
In the result the complaint is allowed in part as follows:-
1. The opposite parties 1&2 are directed to rectify the defects of the disputed vehicle as described in Ext. C1 report on free of cost and also provide 6 months fresh warranty for the same.
2. Opposite parties 1&2 are directed to pay Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand only) each to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service.
3. Both opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five thousand only) each to the complainant towards litigation costs.
The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 30th day of November, 2023.
Sd/- Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/-Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Vishnukumar.P.S(complainant)
PW2 - M. Anilkumar( commissioner)
Ext.A1 - Tax Invoice dtd. 26/8/2022
Ext.A2 - warranty card
Ext.A3 - RC book
Ext.A4 - Copy of letter
Ext.A5 - Job Card.
Ext.C1 - Commission Report.
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Ajeesh Job (witness)
RW2 - Dayal C. Johnson(witness)
Ext.B1 - Technical Specification
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
