SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019,  seeking direction against the  OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- being the compensation for the deficiency  of service on the part of OPs and to pay cost of  proceedings to  the complainant .

Complaint in brief :-

   As per the complaint, complainant booked an electric scooter from OP’s  through  online and the OP informed that the estimate delivery of the vehicle on 1/2/2023.  Thereafter the complainant applied for reservation of registration number and  fancy number was allotted to him and the RTO reported to produce the vehicle for registration within 5 days from  6/3/2023, failing  will result in the cancellation of registration and forfeiture of amount and also  the complainant remitted the insurance premium for registration.  Even though  the complainant completed all formalities with regard to the registration, he never received the scooter .  Hence this complaint.

          After filing the complaint, commission sent notice  to OP and the OP  entered appearance before the commission and filed their version and in their version the OP contended that they are not the real party.  Hence  the complainant  filed impleading  to  arrayed  2^nd OP as party.  Commission sent notice  to supplemental 2^nd OP, notice  not returned within time .  So the commission presume that the notice duly served.  Supplemental 2^nd OP not appeared before the commission and not filed any version.  So the supplemental  2^nd OP is set exparte.

Version of  1^st OP in brief:

     The 1^st OP  denied all averments except those specifically admitted.  The OP contended that Ola Electric Mobility Pvt Ltd is a separate entity  from Ola Electric Technologies Pvt.Ltd and has no role to play in manufacturing , sale, supply, delivery and  after sale services.  The OP is engaged in the business of software support system and marketing across e-commerce platform to enable and  entrance consumer experiences.  The whole grievance of the complainant pertains to an independent third party ie “ Ola Electric Technologies Pvt.Ltd”.  The OP herein is not a party to the transaction executed between complainant and Ola Electric Technologies Pvt.Ltd.  Moreover, the  complainant has not arrayed the real  OP which he had  the transaction and contract.  Thus, the  complaint is bad for mis-joinder of  parties.  The OP further contends that  the complainant will not be a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and no deficiency in service nor any grievance caused to the complainant and  hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of  OPs?
2. Whether there is any compensation & cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidences from both parties. The  complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A3.    Ext.A1 is the copy of payment confirmation letter dtd.12/1/2023, Ext.A2 is the copy screen shot of  message from OP and Ext.A3 is the  screen shot of message from RTO,Kannur.  All exhibits  are marked to subject to proof.  The complainant adduced  evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1.  1^st OP produced 2 documents marked as Exts.B1&B2, Ext.B1 is the certificate of incorporation of  1^st OP issued by Government of India, Ext.B2 is the certificate of incorporation of 2^nd OP.  No oral  evidence from the side of  1^st OP.

      Let us club both issues together in order to answer the grievance,  for the sake of convenience.  The evidences before the commission was perused and answered accordingly.  According to Ext.A1, the payment confirmation dtd.12/1/2023, shows that the vehicle –in-issue was purchased for an amount of Rs.1,48,994/- but Ext.A1, indicates  the name of issuer “OLA” only, nothing specified  any of the OPs full name and address. On perusing Ext.A2, the website address given in the exhibit is the  site address of 2^nd OP ie Ola Electric Technologies Pvt.Ltd .  Moreover, Ext.A2 indicates that the vehicle will be delivered on 1/2/2023.  As per the complaint, complainant claimed that he has not received the vehicle until 18/3/2023.  According to Ext.A2, estimated delivery of the vehicle is on 1/2/2023 but as per Ext.A3, complainant completed the formalities  before RTO on 10//3/2023.  However, the complainant received the vehicle on 31/3/2023 as per the proof affidavit filed by him.  Here the dispute raised by 1^st OP is that they are not a party or not have any contract with  complainant.  During the cross-examination of  complainant, he admitted that he has not produced  any document to show that 1^st OP is the party which the complainant dealt with the purchase of vehicle and also admitted the 1^st OP is not the manufacturer or dealer of the vehicle purchased by complainant.  As per the website address given in Ext.A2, is seen that it is the official address of 2^nd OP.  Exts.B1&B2 show that the certificate of Incorporation  of  OPs 1&2 and the registration is in the year 2017 and 2021 respectively but on the perusal  the address shown is one and same.  Moreover, the complainant deposed that he had purchased the vehicle from  OP showroom at Kannur, but he admitted that he had not arrayed the dealers as a party to the case.  Even if, both OPs are a separate legal entities and there is no specific evidence before the commission with regard to the exact address and name of the OPs except Ext.A2, the website of 2^nd OP.  There is no evidence produced against 1^st OP to shows the deficiency in service from 1^st OP.  So according to the  version of 1^st OP, they are engaged in  software support system and marketing e-commerce platform to enhance consumer experience.  Taken into consideration by the commission to  believe the complainant filed the complaint before the commission after receival of vehicle.  The 2^nd OP who was arrayed as party who was set exparte is liable to the delay caused in delivering  the vehicle  to the complainant and the 1^st OP is not liable to any kind of deficiency in service as  the complainant failed to prove his case against 1^st OP.  Even though the complainant received the vehicle  but the commission noticed that a delay of one month occurred after  Ext.A2 and the 2^nd OP is liable  for this delay caused and the complainant is entitled to get a compensation for the delay  one month caused.

       In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  2^nd opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for delay in delivering the vehicle and also pay Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of this order.  In default  the amount of Rs. 15,000/- carries  interest @7% per annum from the date of order  till realization . Failing which complainant is at liberty to file execution application against  the 2^nd opposite party as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts:

A1- copy of payment confirmation

A2-Screen shot of message from OP

A3- message from RTO

B1&B2- Certificate of Incorporation of  OPs 1&2

PW1-Yathindran.K.V- Complainant

  Sd/                                                 Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                       /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR