BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:4/2022

DATED: 30^th  September 2022

PRESENT: -     Kum. H.N. MEENA., PRESIDENT., B.A. LL.B.,

                       Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.COM., LL.B., MEMBER       

                        Smt. B.H. YASHODA. B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER

:ORDER:

Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER.

The above complaint has been filed by complainant U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for seeking the relief by praying that directions to the opponents to replace the defective vehicle with new one or to make payment of Rs.99,708/-/-(Rupees Ninety Nine thousand Seven Hundred Eight only) with interest of 2% p.m. from the date of purchase till the date of payment and order to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and such other reliefs deemed fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.  

The brief facts of the complaint:

        2. The complainant states in his complaint that the OP No.1 and 2 are the manufacturer of Okinawa Electric Scooters and the OP No.3 is the authorized Dealers of the said vehicle. The complainant is professionally working as a name plate designer in Chitradurga.

3.That the complainant stated in his complaint that the complainant has desired to purchase the one new two wheeler electric vehicle Okinawa IPraise+ since he impress the advertisement in Google and pamphlets. As per the advertisement in Google and pamphlets the said vehicle company is once fully charge, the range of the vehicle is in Sports mode 139 Km/charge, economy mode 160 Km/charge. The assurance and on advertisement for same Google and pamphlet the complainant has purchased the said vehicle by paying Rs.1,15,000/-, in this regard, the OP No.3 has issued a Bill of Rs.99,708/- on 28/06/2021.  At the time of deliver the said vehicle, the OP No.3 has assured the complainant that, as per advertisement in Google and pamphlets the said vehicle is once fully charged the range of the vehicle is in sports mode 139 km/charge economy mode 160 km, if the charge range not come as stated above, he replace the new one or rectified the problems the same as per warranty.

        4. Further, the Complainant states in his complaint that after purchasing the said vehicle, he charged fully and he run the said vehicle to Hosadurga and he return the same to Chitradurga in a sports mode on that day, but the vehicle stopped between Holalkere and Hosadurga, surprisingly he saw the display, that is shows the battery is empty, when he complainant saw meter board the vehicle run only 90 km. In this regard the complainant called to the OP No.3 and he explained the problems of the said vehicle. In this regard, the OP No.3 state that, handed over the said vehicle to OP No.3.  service center and after investigate the problems by appointing engineer from the OP No.1 & 2 he will return the said vehicle to the complainant, as per the advice of the OP No.2 the complainant handed over the said vehicle by toeing the vehicle to Challakere show room, there in the OP No.2 kept the vehicle in his custody for 25 days and he returned  the vehicle to complainant by stating that, the problems are rectified, as per assurance of the OP No.3, the complainant started using the said vehicle, But the same problem are continued, as per the advertisement stated in the OP No.1 to 3 the said vehicle once fully charged the  range of the vehicle in sports mode run for 139 km, but the said vehicle run only 60 km per charge. The said act is clearly shows that, the above OPs are made deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards the complainant.

        5. Further, the complainant states in his complaint has complained the problems persist in the said vehicle like speedometer, tire, and mileage to the ved2000611983@gmail.com on 18/07/2021, but they have not respond the same. Further the complainant to get the number of engineer of OP No.1 to 3 i.e., 7412047772 and informed the same but he has stated that the problems are manufacturing defect and they are unable to rectify the same. In this regard, the complainant issued a legal notice to the OPs through his counsel to the OPs, but the OP No.1 and 3 have received the Notice, but the opponent No.2 have not received the notice. The complainant has filed this complaint before this Hon’ble commission to seek the redress.

6. The cause of action for the complainant has arose to file this complaint is on 28/06/2021, when the complainant has purchased the said vehicle from the opponents. Hence, this complaint comes under the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble commission. 

        7. After registering the complaint, The Hon’ble Commission has issued Notice to opponents, OP No.1 notice duly served on 25/01/2022 placed ex-parte, and OP No.3 notice served on 10/02/2022
placed ex-parte, As per the Memo filed by the complainant, the OP No.2 is not the necessary party, hence, OP No.2 is dismissed as not pressed from the cause that on 30/05/2022.

        8. The complainant got himself examined as PW-1 be filing his affidavit as  a part of examination-in-chief  and the documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7 were got marked and closed their side evidence.

        9. The OPs not appeared before this commission and filed any version nor did written arguments and the OP No.1 & 3 placed
ex-parte. On perusal of the facts and documents of the complaint and also written argument filed by the complainant.

        10. Now, the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that:

1. Whether the complainant proves that he is the consumer of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant proves that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect and the opponents are negligent and there is deficiency in service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitle for reliefs as sought in the complaint?
4. What order?

10. Our finding on the above points are as follows:

a) (i) (ii) Affirmative.

b) (iii) Partly in Affirmative.

c) (iv) As per final order.

REASONS

Point No.1: The complainant has been examined as P.W.1, and produced documents marked as Ex.A-1: Tax Invoice bill dated 28/06/2021,  Ex.A.2- Two Wheeler Policy, Ex.A-3 Tax Invoice (Workshop Cash) Ex.A-4- Advertisement pamphlet of Okinawa, Ex.A.-5  Copy of Legal Notice issued to the OPs  dated 23/09/2021, Ex.A-6 postal Receipt and Ex.A-7 with returned unserved legal Notice cover addressed to OP No.2, As per Ex.A-1 to 3, that there is no dispute that the complainant is the consumer by purchasing the Electric Vehicle Okinawa IPraise+ version for Rs.99,708/- from the OPs, As such, the Point No.1 taken into consideration as affirmative.

Point No.2 & 3: On perusing complaint averments and documents of the said vehicle, the complainant after purchasing of vehicle, charged fully and run the said vehicle to Hosadurga and returned to Chitradurga in a sports mode vehicle on that day, but the vehicle stopped between Holalkere and Hosadurga surprisingly the complainant saw the display, it shows the battery is empty, when he complainant saw meter board the vehicle run only 90 km. In this regard the complainant called to the OP No.3 and explained the problems of the said vehicle. In this regard the OP No.3 stated that, handed over the said vehicle to OP No.3 service Centre and after investigate the problems by appointing engineer from the OP. No.1 and 2 he will return the said Vehicle to the complainant, as per the advice of the OP No.3, the complainant handed over the said vehicle by toeing the vehicle to challakere show room, there in the OP No.3 kept the vehicle in his custody for 25 days and he returned the vehicle  to complainant by stating that, the problems are rectified, as per assurance of the OP No.3 the complainant started using the vehicle, but the same problem are continued as per the advertisement stated in the range of the Vehicle in sports mode run for 139 km. but the said vehicle run only 60 km. per charge as per Annexure-4 in Sl. No.4 range/charge, in column No.2 it clears states that sport-139 Kms/charge (as claimed by ARAI) ECO-160 Kms/charge. But, on running the said vehicle stopped in only running of 90 and 60 kms. But, the opponents have not appeared even after receiving of notice of the complaint and not appeared the commission and the opponents there is no prove that the deficiency in service and negligence.

        On perusing of the facts and documents produced by the complainant, it prima-facie shows that the OPs are derelicted their duties and negligent and deficiency in service. As such, the Point No.2 & 3 taken into consideration as affirmative.

        Point No.4: As discussed on the above points and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:

::ORDER::

        The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is Partly allowed.

        It is ordered that the OP No.1 and 3 are hereby directed to replace the Electric vehicle purchased by the complainant with new one of same model, or refund the amount of Rs. 99,708/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till it’s realization.

It is ordered that the OP No.1 and 3 are directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental shock and mental agony of the complainant.

It is further directed that the OP No.1 and 3 to pay Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of proceedings.

The complaint dismissed against OP No.2.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 and 3 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

        Communicate the order to parties.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 30th September 2022.)

LADY MEMBER                   MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Sri Likayath A, S/o Aslam Pasha by way of affidavit   

           of evidence.

  Wetness examined behalf of opponents:

   Nil.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

Nil

LADY MEMBER                   MEMBER                    PRESIDENT

GM**