BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

 23^RD DAY OF APRIL 2016

O R D E R

SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA,   MEMBER

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for an order against Opposite Parties (herein after referred as OPs) to a) replace the Battery of the vehicle b) to deliver the vehicle Electric Two wheeler Star, bearing Chassis No.IV11020039 and Motor No.SNW48V0912-1895-189 in working condition c) to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service.

2.      The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:

OP-1 is a Company, OP-2 is the authorised dealer of OP-1.  The representative of OP-2 started a sales drive representing that the electrical two wheeler are environmental friendly with key features such as no petrol, no registration, no licence, no gear, low maintenance, zero tail pipe emission, having low running costs and easy to maintain.   Believing the said representation of OP-2 complainant purchased an Electric Two wheeler Star, bearing Chassis No.IV11020039 and Motor No.SNW48V0912-1895-189 from OP-2 on 02.04.2011 by paying a sum of Rs.27,000/-.  After purchase complainant has maintained the said vehicle in good condition and have given vehicle for servicing regularly to the OP-2. The complainant has left the date blank, on which date he has given the vehicle for servicing to OP-2.  The next date due for service was in the month of April 2012. Immediately, after 25 days from the date of delivery of the said vehicle by OP-2 to the complainant, the vehicle has ceased to work.  The vehicle was stopped running and with great difficulty, the complainant brought the said vehicle to OP-2 to know as to why the said vehicle has stopped while running. OP-2 informed that the battery is malfunctioning.  OP-2 serviced the vehicle and battery was charged the same day and was certified to be in good condition by OP-2.  After 25 days again the vehicle started malfunctioning.  The complainant approached OP-2 to replace the said battery.  OP-2 evaded the said request stating that the guarantee period has elapsed and complainant has to purchase a new battery.  From the set of events, it is evident that the said battery started malfunctioning because of manufacturing defect.  The said vehicle was in custody of OP-2.  OP-2 has not allowed the complainant to procure any second opinion regarding the issue.  The vehicle is contrary to the promises and assurances made by OP and complainant realised that only to market the said vehicle, OP has given all false promises and assurances which constitutes deficiency of service and misrepresentation.  OP came up with a new version, stating the complainant has used the vehicle contrary to the manual.  Hence complainant got issued the legal notice dated 03.07.2012 calling upon OP to replace the battery failing which complainant will take appropriate legal action.  OPs issued untenable reply dated 21.07.2012.  OP started evading the complainant on the pretext of procuring an expert opinion on the malfunctioning of battery meanwhile complainant acquired an expert opinion regarding the entire issue and said expert was of the opinion that malfunctioning of the battery which was result of manufacturing defect. Complainant approached OP. To the surprise of the complainant OPs have closed down the company itself.  Again on 31.10.2014 complainant was constrained to cause the notice calling upon OPs to replace the battery and deliver the vehicle in working condition.  The said notices have returned unserved with an endorsement “Addressee Left” and “No such address”, which itself evident that the OP offices have closed down and they are not providing the services to the customers. The vehicle of the complainant is still in the custody of the OPs.    Hence, complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  Under the circumstances, he is advised to file this complaint against OP for appropriate relief.

3.  After registration of the complaint, notice was issued to           OP 1 & 2.  Inspite of service of notice OP 1 & 2 remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause.  Hence OPs were placed exparte and posted the case for filing affidavit of the complainant.

4. In support of his complaint, Smt.Sridevi.K.V., who being the complainant filed her affidavit by way of evidence reiterating the complaint averments and produced documents.

5. In support of her complaint, complainant has produced the following documents.  Document No.1 is copy of the tax invoice dated 02.04.2011 issued by OP-2 for having purchased Electric Two Wheeler- 1 Star by paying a sum of Rs.27,000/-.  Document No.2 is copy of the Email sent by OP to complainant introducing the Electric two wheeler.  Document No.3 is copy of the job sheet /service sheet dated 23.08.2012.  Document No.4 is copy of the email sent to OP Company dated 28.05.2012 stating that dealer has given assurances of 18000 to 20000 kms mileage but just for 5500kms vehicle has stopped and battery is not working.  Document No.5 is the copy of the email sent dated 31.05.2012 by the OP-2 to the complainant stating that after one year of purchase no warrantee is applicable and battery warranty is as per manufacturer only and manufacturer has given six months warranty only. The additional pro-rata warranty of 6 months was given from the OP Company for customer’s convenience and battery warranty is also subject to terms and conditions of usage as specified in the owner manual.  Document No.6 is copy of the legal notice dated 03.07.2012 got issued by complainant to OP 1 & 2 calling upon OP to replace battery failing which complainant will take appropriate legal action.  Document No.7 is copy of the reply notice of OPs stating that even now they are ready to repair the vehicle subject to payment of applicable charges.  Document No.8 is copy of the second notice got issued by complainant dated 17.12.2014 calling upon OP 1 & 2 to replace the battery and deliver the vehicle in working condition within 15 days failing which he will approach appropriate authority for appropriate reliefs.  Document No.9 is copy of the RPAD returned covers and receipts.

6.  We have perused the oral and documentary evidence produced by the complainant.  It is contended by the complainant that he attracted by the salient features of electric two wheeler offered by OP-2 and purchased the same on 02.04.2011 as per Document No.1, tax invoice issued by OP-2 by paying a sum of Rs.27,000/-. Within 25 days from the date of purchase vehicle ceased to run.  Hence complainant got serviced his vehicle by OP-2.  Complainant has not produced any material to show the date on to when he got serviced the vehicle from OP-2.  At para 6 of his complaint, the complainant admits OP-2 has serviced his vehicle by charging the batteries on the same day and certified to be in good condition and has left the date blank.  After 25 days again the said vehicle ceased to run.  Hence, Complainant has left the date blank in his complaint.  Complainant got issued legal notice dated 03.07.2012 and 17.12.2014 calling upon OPs to replace the battery or to repair the vehicle.  The said notice returned unserved.  Hence this complaint.   

7. From the available materials on record, it is crystal clear that the as per Document No.3 job sheet produced by the complainant date of service mentioned is 23.08.2012 i.e., after one year and 4 months after purchase the vehicle was given to OP-2 for service.  As per email dated 31.05.2012 i.e. Document No.2 OP-2  has mentioned manufacturer warranty of 6 months for battery and additional 6 months warranty was given for customer convenience on prorata basis.  Complainant has not produced any warranty card, in respect of electric vehicle he purchased or manual so as to claim warranty.  The burden is on the complainant to produce material evidence or expert opinion in support of his claim.  In the absence of any material evidence we are unable to come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs in not replacing the battery or repairing the vehicle.  Once the warranty period is over OPs are not bound to repair the vehicle or replace battery free of cost.   As per Document No.7 reply notice OPs are ready to repair the vehicle subject to payment of applicable charges.  Complaint is devoid of merits.  Complainant failed to prove deficiency in services against OPs.  So, he is not entitled for any of the relief claimed. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

2. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 23^rd day of April 2016)

MEMBER                          MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

NRS* 

COMPLAINT NO.1120/2015

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant dated 04.03.2016 Smt.Sridevi.K.V.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the OPs – Absent

List of documents produced by the OPs– Nil

MEMBER                             MEMBER                         PRESIDENT