THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C. 189/2012

Dated this the 1^st day of February 2017

                     (Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                         :  President)

                          Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                           : Member

                          Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB                 : Member                                                                 

ORDER

Present: Beena Joseph, Member:

            This petition was filed on 28.04.2012 by the complainant alleging that he had purchased an Electric Scooter from the opposite parties  on 20.09.2010, by paying Rs.41,800/- which having one year warranty.  The vehicle was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party.  They offered that the vehicle was the best quality one.  On 09.07.2011 it was noticed that the movement of vehicle was became slow then he contact opposite party for service but they did not turned up for several days.  After repeated demands on 04.08.2011 the first opposite party removed the motor and back wheel of the bike, stating that it would be replaced with new one.  Afterwards first opposite party not turned up.  Lastly they fitted an old motor to the bike on 14.09.2011.  The above bike became complaint within three days.  So the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party but there was no response or service on their part.  The complainant purchased the above bike believing the assurance regarding the quality of bike and prompt service from the opposite parties.  But they could not provide proper service and ensure the conditions of warranty.  So the complainant could not use the vehicle due to the negligence deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of opposite parties.  Hence the complainant sustained huge financial loss, mental agony and pain.  So the complainant is entitled to get compensation for their deficiency of service and negligence.  Complainant issued Lawyer notice to the opposite parties claiming price of the bike and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.  Though the opposite parties received notice, the 1^st opposite party alone send a reply denying the  allegations.  Hence this complainant claims the price of bike and compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

            In the above matter notice issued to both parties.  First opposite party appeared and filed version.  Second and third opposite party notice served but not appeared hence set ex-parte.

            First opposite party filed version stating the following contentions.  First opposite party states that, the petition is not maintainable, complainant is not entitled to get any relief from them.  The above complaint is baseless one, which filed to harass the opposite party, to avail unlawful gain.  The 1^st opposite party admits that complainant had purchased an Electric Scooter from the 1^st opposite party which manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party.  1^st opposite party disputes the claim of the petitioner that the defect of the  bike was intimated to the 1^st opposite party further they disputes that the bike was slow after repair.  The first opposite party denies the allegation of negligence and improper service on their part.  Opposite party content that, this electric scooter has to be used according to the owner’s manual provided to the complainant.  Otherwise the vehicle might have become defective.  Even though first opposite party is ready to provide service on cost, hence there is no service deficiency on their part.  First  opposite party is only a dealer of the vehicle, all the liabilities arises out of manufacturing defect should have been met by manufacturing Company.  The manufacturing company has provided one year warranty for the vehicle, the said period of warranty was over.  Hence free service is also lapsed.  The averment that the petitioner is not able to use the vehicle due to defects also denied by opposite party.  The manufacturing defect alleged by the complainant has to be rectified by the manufacturer company ie. M/s. Ampere vehicle private Ltd.  Therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

Points to be considered.

1. Whether there is any service deficiency or illegal trade practice adopted by opposite party?
2. If yes what are the reliefs?

     In this matter complainant filed affidavit and examined as PW1, Ext.A1 to A4 and X1 marked. Ext.A1 is the invoice issued by first opposite party. Ext.A2 is the Lawyer notice to first opposite party and its acknowledgment.  Ext.A3 is the reply notice by first opposite party.  Ext.A4 series is the Lawyer notice to second and third opposite parties with acknowledgment and X1 Commission report.  Opposite party has not adduced any evidence.

              The complaint and version was stated above, which need not be adverted here again.  Going through the complaint, version and evidence, it can be seen that there was no dispute with respect to this sale of the electric scooter.  More over the maintainability of the case is not challenged by the opposite party.         Now the only point remaining to consider is, whether there is any service deficiency of service or illegal trade practice or manufacturing defect to the product.  The complainant purchased electric scooter from first opposite party as on 20.09.2010. The above electric scooter was manufactured by second opposite party.  The above bike was having 1 year warranty from 20.09.2010 onwards.  So the warranty lapses on 20.09.2011.  Admittedly the vehicle became complaint on 09.07.2011.  And there was no proper service on the part of first opposite party who being the agent of the manufacturer.  The complainant’s case is that, the bike became slow and the motor and back wheel was taken by first opposite party’s technicians and later they fitted an old motor and wheel to the bike, that too after 40 days.  Again the bike became complaint within three days.  From the above averment it can be seen that the vehicle became complaint within one year of purchase, that is within the warranty period.  This fact was not disputed by the contesting opposite party.  The main contention taken by the opposite party that if it being a manufacturing defect that has to be rectified or replaced by the manufacturer, ie. 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party.

              In this matter second and third opposite party remained absent hence they set ex-parte.  First opposite party contenting that the vehicle became defective due to the non compliance of the instructions in the manual.

              In this matter complainant has filed IA.14/15 to appoint an expert to inspect the vehicle, which was allowed and electronic and electrical engineer was appointed as an expert in this matter.  He inspected the bike on 23.02.2016 and he reported that the above bike was not working for the last few years.  Its back wheel is fitted with electric motor which is in a worn out condition.  The motor number 166050346 CA 404047 is seen on the wheel disc and the bike is not in a repairable condition.

              There was no objection to the Commission Report by either side.  The expert report shows that the vehicle is in an un repairable condition, which ought to have replaced.  In this matter the petitioner raising, this allegation from the very beginning that too during warranty period. From the circumstance it can be inferred that the vehicle had manufacturing defect.  The vehicle which having manufacturing defect must be replaced or its value has to be returned.  In this matter it is seen that petitioner is not demanding the replacement, he is claiming the price of the product and compensation.  From the above discussion, it is clear that petitioner lost Rs.41,800/- within ten months from the date of purchase of the vehicle, which might have caused mental strain and pain to the complainant. It is come out that opposite parties were not provided proper service to the complainant.  Which has to be compensated by the opposite parties. So opposite party committed illegal trade practice and deficiency of service by selling a defective vehicle.  Hence the above petition is allowed.

              Therefore we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.41,800/-(Rupees forty one thousand eight hundred only) towards the price of the bike and to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for illegal trade practice,  service deficiency and mental agony .  Opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.  Comply the order with, within one month from the date of receiving the copy of the order.

                                                                              Dated this 1^st day of February 2017.

Date of filing:28.04.2012..

SD/-MEMBER                                         SD/-PRESIDENT                           SD/- MEMBER

                                                                                      APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Invoice issued by the first opposite party for Rs.41800/- dtd.20.09.2010.

A2. Lawyer notice issued to the first opposite party dtd.22.11.2011.

A3. Reply notice issued by the 1^st opposite party dtd.31.01.2012.

A4. Series is the Lawyer notice to second and third opposite parties with acknowledgment

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

PW1. K.Mohanan(Complainant)

X1. Commission report

Witness examined for the opposite party:

None

                                                                                                                                           Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT