Date of Filing:18.12.2021

Date of Disposal:20.03.2023

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BENGALURU

1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027.

ORDER

Smt.Nandini H Kumbhar,

Member

1. This complaint is filed by the complainant under section 35 of the C.P.Act, 2019 against the OPs alleging deficiency of service with a direction to pay costs of the vehicle as per invoice amounting Rs.2,79,462/- towards Rs.60,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.20,000/- towards towing and other charges, Rs.15,000/- towards damages  and also award compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and hardship caused and such other reliefs.

2.   The brief facts of the case is as follows: 

The complainant submits that on 27.03.2021 the complainant purchased TREOElectric Auto from OP-1 for Rs.2,79,462/- with 03 years warranty and on full charge it will run to the 130KMs. The said vehicle was delivered which is registered as KA-02-AH-7003 as 27.03.2021 from OP-1. After running the vehicle for 15 days the complainant noticed that instead of 130Kms it was running only from 50 to 55 KMs. Further the vehicle was use to stop abruptly in the middle of the road. When the complainant approached OP, they advised that it will automatically increase the mileage. Again the complainant approached the OP-1 for service and OP-1 charged Rs.354/- on 20.07.2021 by synchronizing software and stated that the vehicle will run minimum of 100KMs for full charge battery. The same problem occurred after 05 days and OP-1 informed that due to shortage of spare parts unable to give new charger for battery software.On 27.08.2021 the complainant got checked the vehicle with OP-1 and paid Rs.27/- for general check up as it had same problem.

3. The complainant submits that, the complainant approached OP-1 on 22.09.2021 due to heavy rain could not ride the vehicle and OP-1 stating same reason as no spare parts available and against same problem occurred on 19.10.2021. After inspect the vehicle by OP-1 assured to bring the vehicle and on 22.10.2021 the complainant left the said vehicle with OP-1 as it is giving low mileage and it was running only 50 to 55 KMs. After inspecting OP-1 failed to repair it and returned the vehicle as it is not possible to rectify the mileage. As per OPs canvassed the said vehicle will only fully charged will run for 130 Kms, but it is running only 50 Kms and abruptly stops in the middle of the road. After leaving for 10 to 15 minutes, the vehicle will start but will run only 3 to 5 Kms. When the complainant struck in the middle of the road, OP-1 charged Rs.2,500/- for towing, inspite of 9 months the OPs never replace not changed the battery. Due to mechanical/ manufacturing defect of OP-1 and serviced by OP-1 the complainant undergone mental agony and hardship and also lost earning income of his livelihood. Aggrieved by the act of the OPs the complainant filed this complaint seeking relief as prayed in the complaint.

4. Notice to OP-1 & 2 duly served. OPs represented by their counsel and filed their written version, affidavit along with documents in support of their contention.

5. The complainant also filed Chief-examination affidavit by reiterating the complaint allegations and also filed documents in support of their plea.

6. Heard arguments of both the parties and matter is posted for orders.

7.  The points that arise for our consideration are;

1. Whether the Complainant prove that there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as alleged in the complaint and thereby prove that he is entitle for the relief sought?
2. What order?

8. The findings on the above points are as under:

Point No.1           :       Negative

Point No.2           :       As per final order

REASONS

9. POINT NO.1:-  The complainant purchased TREO Electric Auto from OP-1 for Rs.2,79,462/- with warranty and on full charge it will run for 130Kms. The said vehicle was delivered and registered on 27.03.2021 from OP-1. After running 15 days the complainant noticed that it was running only for 50 to 55 KMs instead of 130 KMs and further the vehicle used to stop abruptly in the middle of the road. When the complainant approached OP-1 it will automatically increase and OP-1 charged Rs.354/- for service and stated that the vehicle will run minimum of 100 Kms for full charge battery and again the complainant faced same problem. When the complainant approached OP-1 and left the said vehicle with OP-1, but      OP-1 failed to repair it and returned the vehicle as it is not possible to rectify the mileage issue. Even after assurance by OPs it is running only 50 KMs and abruptly stopped in the middle of the road. When the complainant approached the OPs many times, OPs failed to rectify the problem of the said vehicle. Aggrieved by the act of the OPs, the complainant filed this complaint seeking relief as prayed in the complaint.

10.  The OP-1 & 2 represented by the counsel and filed detailed version and OP-1 submits that, the OP-1 is only an authorized dealer and the manufacturer reserves the right of vehicle and OPs decision in all matters. The OP-1 denies all the allegations made in the complaint. The OP-1 submits that the vehicle was reported on 20.07.2021 and observation of vehicle stoppage at 50 to 55 KMs has been seen due to improper charging pattern by the customer and he charges of Rs.354/- for first service, in which transmission oil replaced will be chargeable.  The vehicle was reported on 18.10.2021 for low mileage, kept the vehicle for overnight for charging and taken joint road test on 19^th with the complainant and after being satisfied with mileage achieved and signed on the satisfaction note and the vehicle has  reported in towing condition to workshop and no issue raised for off board charger. Therefore, the board charges was never replaced and after satisfaction of the complainant on 19.10.2021 and 23.12.2021 delivered the vehicle to the complainant. The OP-1 co-operate with the complainant whenever he has visited and attended to all complaints. Hence, OP-1 is not liable to comply the demand of the complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint against OP-1.

11. Wherein, OP-2 denied all the allegations, the allegation of the complainant is about the low mileage and issue leading to such inconvenience is the improper pattern of charging which has been informed by the OP-1 and it is keen to know here that the couple of occasions when the vehicle was kept overnight with OP- and was charged. The vehicle was tested, after satisfaction as mileage the complainant took the vehicle and the vehicle would run 130KMs and the battery would last long for more than five years and three years as warranty was assured. The OP-2 further submits that the vehicle suffering any sort of manufacturing is devoid of any grounds unproved and the complainant has failed to adduce any expert evidence to prove the alleged manufacturing defect. Based on the above, the complaint is lacking merits and hence, prays to dismiss the complaint against OP-2 for unproved allegations made by the complainant.

12. The complainant also filed chief-examination affidavit along with documents and the complainant reproduced the complaint averments also made some allegations against OPs. Thereby the alleged deficiency in the service and sought for relief to pay the cost of the vehicle as per invoice along with other reliefs.

13. In view of the above discussions and on perusal of the contentions of both the parties and the documents placed, the commission held that  the vehicle was taken to workshop frequently right from the purchase for low mileage and gave trouble and the vehicle was taken to OP-1 service centre for removing the defects that is instead of 130 KMs it was running only 50 to 55 Kms and abruptly stop in the middle of the road, the said vehicle was observed by OP-1 and found that due to improper charging pattern by the complainant and kept the vehicle for overnight with OP-1/service centre and the same was taken joint test ride, and after the satisfaction with mileage the complainant has signed the note which the OPs have produced and marked as annexure R3 and after that the vehicle has never reported in towing condition to workshop and the same was recorded in the vehicle history produced by OP-2 as document Annexure-R3, in which detailed information regarding complainant visited OP-1/service centre and the OP-2 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle and the vehicle is purchased by the complainant is covered with warranty as on the date. The alleged defect and problem found OPs have make it corrected and whenever he visited OP-1/showroom they have corrected it which clearly shows in the vehicle history in document no.R3 which is also observed.  When the complainant has used the vehicle as per manual submitted and due to improper pattern of charging and whenever the vehicle was complained with low mileage the vehicle was corrected by the OP-1 and after vehicle was tested and after satisfaction of mileage the complainant took the vehicle.

14. It is also observed that complainant has stated in his pleadings that after using the said vehicle for some period of time the defect of low mileage and other problems persist. When there is a manufacturing defect in the said vehicle, the complainant has failed to prove the defects by filing on expert report. The records created in  Vehicle history as Annexure-R2  produced by OP-2 showing the persistent of complaints about vehicle and various repairs and charges undertaken by OP-1/Service Centre, and it  It is important evidence to show the alleged claims regarding towing, repairs and other charges. Despite rectification of the problem continuous and also observed that when it is the specific contention of OPs that it was due to wrong handling of the said vehicle by the complainant. To verify the same by getting the vehicle inspected through authorized mechanical engineer, but no such pains are taken by the complainant. Therefore, in the absence of any such expert evidence, the bare contention of the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the said vehicle cannot be accepted.  On this point, the commission relied on the judgment in Baljeet Kaur V/s Divine motors on 08.06.2017, the Hon’ble National Consumer Commission  emphasized that when the vehicle defect is alleged the burden of proof has to be on complainant and there is no substitute for an expert opinion to determine manufacturing defect and in the absence of any evidence in support of this contentions   and the allegations without supporting proof and pleading without any expert report is enable  in law.  From the averments of the complainant and documents produced by both parties it is crystal clear that OPs have made best efforts to get it repaired  if it is within warranty. Even if it is found that there were no major defects in the vehicle except for low mileage which was ultimately corrected by the OPs under warranty. Even this defect cannot be considered as a manufacturing defect, because it was not there since the purchase of the vehicle, rather it developed after the vehicle used for some period for wrong handling of the vehicle.

15. In view of the aforesaid discussion and also the contentions of the parties and by ratio laid down in the complaint, we are of definite opinion that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the above reasons. Accordingly, the Point No.1 we answer in Negative.

16. POINT NO.2:- In the result, we passed the following:

                                         ORDER

1. The complaint filed by the Complainant U/s.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is dismissed. No costs.

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

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Commission on 20^th March 2023)

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)             (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)       

         MEMBER                                        MEMBER

Witness examined on behalf of the complainant by way of affidavit:

Sri Raju.K.N-who being the complainant

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witness examined on behalf of the OP-1 by way of affidavit:

Sri Satish R.Shetty-Who being the OP-1

Documents produced by the OP-1
 

Witness examined on behalf of the OP-2 by way of affidavit:

Sri Ranjeeth Shetty-Who being the OP-2

Documents produced by the OP-2
 

(RAMACHANDRA M.S.)

PRESIDENT

(NANDINI H KUMBHAR)          (CHANDRASHEKAR S.NOOLA)

         MEMBER                                     MEMBER

SKA*