DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this 28th day of June 2024
Filed on 26.07.2022
Present:
Shri. D.B. Binu, President
Shri. V. Ramachandran, Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., Member
C.C No. 360/2022
Complainant:
Mr. Baiju CP, Chethalan house, Cheriyavappalassery, Angamaly South PO, Ernakulam, Kerala 683573.
(By Adv. Mishal M.Dasan, Flat No.55/2332, Cheruparambath Apartments, Mattalil Temple Road, Kadavanthra P.O., Pin-682 020)
Vs.
Opposite Party:
Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 57, Udyog Vihar IV, Sector 18, Gurugram, Haryana 122015.
(Op rep. by Adv.U.Jayakrishnan, Sooraj Dwaraka, Jass Associates, 1st Floor, T.D.Road, North End, Ernakulam)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant, a regular customer of the Opposite Party, purchased a Hero electric vehicle from Parx Hero Angamaly on November 21, 2021. There is an issue with the odometer, which records more kilometers than the actual distance traveled. The complainant reports that after driving 100 kilometers, the odometer shows 120 kilometers. Despite the vehicle being under warranty, the dealer did not address the issue. The complainant also incurred expenses with the Opposite Party, who failed to respond appropriately.
The complainant experienced mental and financial distress due to the lack of service and repeatedly contacted the Opposite Party via phone and email. The Opposite Party's responses were inadequate and unprofessional. As a result of the Opposite Party's actions, the complainant feels cheated out of their hard-earned money and has suffered significant stress and inconvenience.
The complainant argues that the Opposite Party's negligence and unfair trade practices have caused undue hardship and mental anguish. Despite paying in full, the complainant did not receive proper service, constituting a deficiency.
The complaint is filed within the time frame specified by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to:
- Direct the Opposite Party to address the issue promptly, either by fixing the odometer or refunding Rs. 99,740/-.
- Award Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and mental harassment.
- Order the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 10,000/- to cover litigation costs.
2.Notice
The notice to the Opposite Party was sent by the Commission. However, despite accepting the notice, the Opposite Party did not file a version within the statutory period, and as a result, they are set ex parte.
3.Evidence
The complainant submitted an ex-parte proof affidavit along with three documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A3. The documents are:
Exhibit A1: A copy of the payment details.
Exhibit A2: A copy of the legal notice by the Advocate dated 28/04/2022.
Exhibit A3: A copy of the warranty card along with the warranty policy details.
4.Points for Analysis
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief from the side of the opposite party?
iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?
5. The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. A copy of the payment details produced by the complainant (Exhibit A1). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant initiated legal action to seek redress for the deficiencies in service and the engagement in unfair trade practices by the opposite party.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. The opposite party's conscious failure to file their written version despite having received the Commission’s notice amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. The case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The complainant purchased a Hero electric vehicle from Parx Hero Angamaly on November 21, 2021, and provided a copy of the payment details as Exhibit 1. There is an issue with the odometer reading, showing 120 kilometres for every 100 kilometres travelled. Despite the vehicle being under warranty, the dealer and the Opposite Party did not respond to complaints made via email.
The complainant suffered mental and financial harassment due to the lack of service, repeatedly contacting the Opposite Party through phone and email, but received no resolution. This unprofessional conduct caused significant distress, hindering the complainant's ability to live comfortably.
The Opposite Party's negligence and unfair trade practices have led to the complainant being deceived and experiencing unnecessary stress. Despite full payment, the Opposite Party failed to provide proper service, constituting a deficiency.
The cause of action arose on April 28, 2022, when the Opposite Party did not fulfil their obligations despite a legal notice sent by the complainant's advocate, which is attached as Exhibit 2. A copy of the warranty card and policy details is provided as Exhibit 3.
The complainant requests the commission to allow the complaint as prayed for.
We have meticulously considered the detailed submissions of the complainant, as well as thoroughly reviewed the entire record of evidence.
A. Maintainability of the Complaint
Under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is defined as a person who buys any goods or hires or avails any services for a consideration that has been paid, promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant has produced a copy of the payment details (Exhibit A1), which clearly establishes that he is a consumer as per the Act. Hence, the complaint is maintainable.
B. Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice
The evidence presented, including the ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, was unchallenged by the Opposite Party. This conscious failure to file their written version despite receiving the Commission’s notice amounts to an admission of the allegations against them. This view aligns with the stance of the Hon’ble National Commission in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The complainant purchased the Hero electric vehicle and experienced a significant discrepancy in the odometer reading, which was not rectified despite the vehicle being under warranty. The complainant's repeated attempts to seek redress were met with inadequate responses from the Opposite Party. This constitutes a clear deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice, causing the complainant undue hardship and mental anguish.
We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite party. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence, the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
I. The opposite party shall rectify the defects of the odometer free of cost to the satisfaction of the complainant within 45 days from the date of receiving this order.
II. The opposite party shall pay ₹20,000 (Rupees twenty thousand only) as compensation for monetary loss, mental agony, and hardship suffered by the complainant. This amount is awarded for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, as well as for the mental agony and physical hardships endured by the complainant.
III. The opposite party shall also pay the complainant ₹10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Party is liable for the fulfilment of the above orders, which must be executed within 45 days from the date of receiving this order. Failure to comply with the payment orders under point II will result in interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (26.07.2022) until the date of full payment realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of June 2024.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Exhibit A1: A copy of the payment details.
Exhibit A2: A copy of the legal notice by the Advocate dated 28/04/2022.
Exhibit A3: A copy of the warranty card along with the warranty policy details.
uk/
Date of Despatch ::
By Hand ::
By Post ::
