SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The Complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”), on dated 28.12.2020, alleging a “deficiency-in-service” by the Ops, where OP No.1 is the manufacturing company of E-scooter and the OP No.2 is the owner of a show room of E-scooter so also vendor. That, as per the complainant’s petition the cause of action arose on dated 20.09.2020.
2. That upon admission of the present case, the Ops were appropriately noticed along with copy of the complaint petition. The record says, the notice was properly served upon the Ops on dated 14.1.2021 and 21.1.2021, but they did not turn up to contest the case before this commission, despite given several opportunities and hence set ex parte.
3. The case of the Complainant in brief is that, on 16.09.2020 complainant purchased one E-scooter from the OP No.2 for Rs.61,757.15 with proper tax invoice and purchase receipt. On 19.9.2020 the vehicle of the complainant got damaged due to short circuit and the complainant contacted with the OP No.2, who told her to leave the vehicle in the show room/service station. Accordingly, the complainant left her vehicle in the service station of OP No.2. On being informed by the OP No.2, on 20.9.2020, the complainant received her vehicle from the service station of OP No.2 and while returning home, she found her vehicle was exposed same old problem and the speed limit of the vehicle was not exceed 20 Kms per hour as per advertisement of 50 Kms and also the battery was fully discharged after 30 Kms. So, the complainant made a complaint before OP No.2, but the OP No.2, instead of solving the problem, threatened her not to come to his show room. Out of frustration, the complainant left her vehicle in the show room of OP No.2 for its repair. Thereafter, the complainant made a run to the show room of OP No.2 to get her vehicle in proper condition, but in vain. Lastly on 11.12.2020 when she visited the show room, OP No.2 and his staffs misbehaved her. Neither OP No.2 returned her vehicle nor the consideration amount. So, the complainant lodged written report before the Soro Police Station and on refusal, the complainant filed one complaint case bearing ICC No.201 of 2020 in the Court of JMFC, Soro and the Court directed the IIC, Soro for registration of the case. On 3.11.2020, the complainant sent legal notice on the Ops and till date as no response is being made on their behalf, the complainant was constrained to file this case with the prayer stated in her complaint petition. Hence, this case.
4. To substantiate her case, the complainant relied upon the following documents, which are placed in the record-
- Photocopy of purchase receipt.
- Advocate notice along with registration receipt.
- Advertisement of Krishna E-Motors
- Photocopy of Complaint petition vide ICC No.201/20.
5. In spite of receipt of notices, the Opposite Parties did not turn up despite given several opportunities and were set ex-parte.
6. In view of the above averments of the parties, the points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer as per C.P Act, 2019?
(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops towards the Complainant?
(v) To what other relief(s), the Complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
7. So far as the issue as to whether the complainant is a consumer or not is concerned, first of all, it is to be seen how far the complainant is proved herself to be a consumer under the Ops.
8. No doubt, OP No.1 is the manufacturing company of E-Scooter B6, B6+, B7 & E-Bike situated in the State of Maharastra whereas OP No.2 is the dealer under OP No.1 dealing with E-Scooter and E-Bike manufactured by OP No.1 in his show-room styled as “M/S KRISHNA E MOTORS” situated at Makarpur, Soro in the district of Balasore. It is the case of the complainant that being allured by the advertisement published for sale of the said vehicle and motivated by the agents of OP No.2, she had purchased one E-Scooter B6+ bearing Frame No.UCE12V4881021, Motor No.20191114524 and Battery No.202009050386, 202009050387, 202009050388, 202009050389, 202009050390 having a speed limit up to 55 Km per hour, charge of the battery ranges till 120 Km with a load capacity of 150 Kg and charging time for 6-7 hours/3.5 hour speed. To substantiate her claim, the complainant has produced the advertisement published by the OP No.2 to which the complainant was impressed upon for purchasing E-Scooter. The complainant has also produced Tax Invoice dated 16.09.2020. From the above Tax Invoice, it is clearly made out that the complainant Sanjulata Ghadei purchased the E-Scooter in question from the show room of OP No.2 @ Rs.64,845.00 and paid Rs.50,000.00 and Rs.14,845.00 was balance. It further reveals that OP No.2 has put his signature on the Tax Invoice as well as the complainant. From the above, it is established that the complainant bought E-Scooter for a consideration which has been partly paid and partly promised with the approval of Ops. Therefore, it is held that the complainant is a consumer under Ops as laid down U/s 2 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
9. As regards the cause of action and maintainability of the case, the complainant has stated in her complaint petition that on 19.09.2020 her purchased vehicle got damaged due to short circuit in the body i.e. after three days of the purchase. She contacted OP No.2, who told to leave the vehicle in his show room-cum-service station and on the same day the complainant delivered her vehicle for repairing. On the next day i.e. on 20.09.2020, OP No.2 informed the complainant that the vehicle has been repaired and fit for delivery. Accordingly, the complainant received her vehicle and on returned to home the vehicle exposed same problem and not performing as specified in the advertisement. Again, the complainant complained before OP No.2, who instead of solving the problem threatened her not to come to his show room again. Out of frustration, the complainant left her vehicle in the show room of OP No.2. The complainant felt that she has been cheated by the OP No.2 who has indulged in unfair trade practice by making false advertisement alluring general people for malafide gain. .
10. It is further averred that the complainant visited the show room of the OP No.2 time and again and demanded her vehicle in proper condition, but in vain. On 11.12.2020, when the complainant last visited the show room of OP No.2, she was misbehaved by the OP No.2 and his staffs. Finding no other way out, the complainant availed police help and when she was refused, she take shelter in the Court of law lodging a complaint bearing ICC No.201 of 2020 before the JMFC, Soro. To prove its case, complainant has produced Xerox copy of certified copy of ICC No.201 of 2020. Thereafter, on 3.11.2020, the complainant served legal notice upon the Ops and as no response is received, the complainant was constrained to file the case.
From the foregoing discussions, it is held that the complainant has cause of action to file the present case and the case is maintainable in the eye of law.
11. Lastly, it is to be threshed out as to whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops towards the Complainant. As discussed earlier that after three days of purchased, the vehicle of the complainant got damaged due to short circuit in the body and on contacted, OP No.2 told to leave the vehicle in his show room-cum-service station and on the same day the complainant delivered her vehicle for repairing. On 20.09.2020, being informed by OP No.2 regarding repairing of the vehicle the complainant visited the show room-cum-service station of OP No.2 and received back her vehicle, but on returned to home the vehicle exposed same problem. Again, when the complainant complained before OP No.2 regarding the same problem of her vehicle, instead of solving the problem, OP No.2 and his staffs threatened her not to come to his show room again. Out of frustration, the complainant left her vehicle in the show room of OP No.2. Thereafter, on 3.11.2020, the complainant served legal notice upon the Ops, but no response was received by the complainant from them till filing of the case.
It is out of place to mention here that although the Ops were received notices issued against them, did not appear to contest the case for which the sole testimony of the complainant goes unchallenged.
12. From the above, it is clear that the Ops are totally failed to provide adequate service in making good the vehicle of the complainant and cheated her which otherwise attributed deficiency in service towards the complainant and thereby both the Ops are held to be negligent towards the right of a bonafide consumer. Therefore, both the Ops are jointly and severally liable for the compensation as claimed by the complainant.
Hence, it is ordered -
O R D E R
The complaint of the complainant be and the same is allowed on ex-parte against the OPs. The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,00,000.00 to the complainant towards the financial loss, compensation and mental agony. Further, the Ops are directed to pay the aforesaid awards to the complainant within two months hence, failing which the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 6% PA payable by the Ops from the date of actual cause of action till its realization. In case of deviation, the complainant is at liberty to realize the same through the process of law. In the peculiar facts & circumstances of the case, no order as to cost. Also, the O.Ps are hereby directed to deliver properly repaired, serviceable e-vehicle or a brand new e-vehicle in lieu of the defective vehicle within aforesaid period.
Given under my hand and the seal of this Commission, this the 23rd day of May, 2023.
