West Bengal

Bankura

CC/30/2024

Sri Avijit Shit - Complainant(s)

Versus

Owner/Proprietor/Dealer,E.V MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

Sandip Chakraborty

09 Jul 2024

ORDER

   IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No.30/2024

        Date of Filing:   03/04/2024

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                              Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui              Ld. Member.

For the Complainant:Ld. Advocate Sandip Chakraborty

For the O.P. No.1: 1. Kingshuk Karmakar, Advocate/Authorized Representative

For the O.P. No.2: Ld. Advocate Mahiuddin Ahmed

 Complainant:

Sri Avijit Shit,S/O-Bisweswar Shit,R/O-Barbakra,Chhatna,P.O&P.S-Chhatna,Dist-Bankura,Pin-722132,Mob-9547521852

     Opposite Party:

    

1. Owner/Proprietor/Dealer,E.V MOTORS,Satighat Bypass Road,P.O&P.S&Dist-Bankura,Pin-722102,Mob-7478016627
2. Sri Abhinav Sahay,S/O-Rajib Sahay,Proprietor/Owner/Director,Texor Energy Pvt.Ltd.1/4223,Ansari Road,Daryaganj,New Delhi,Pin-110002.India.Email:li.onbatterysales@gmail.com

                                                                                                                                     

FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT

                                                                                                                                                           

Order No.05

Dated:09-07-2024

The Complainant files hazira through Advocate.

O.P. No.1 & O.P. No.2 are present represented by their respective Advocate.

O.P. No.2 filed the written version to contest the case but no written version is filed by O.P. No.1 within the statutory period.

So, the case is taken up for argument on the prayer of both sides.

After hearing argument from both side the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that he purchased one electric scooter with Chasis No.LESZMX20220710515, Engine No. 202208ZMX0040 and Battery No.T2208C154PIH from O.P. No.1 under Invoice dated: 20/12/2022 for Rs.74,285.71 with the fitting of Li-On battery being assured by the Dealer of its longevity and low electric consumption. After use of the said electeic scooter for about 7-8 months the battery became defective as it could not supply power to the motor of the electric scooter even after fully charged. The Complainant thereafter deposited the said battery on 17/09/2023 to O.P. No.1 who after servicing returned the same but the battery did not work. When the O.P. No.1 was approached for replacement of dead Li-On battery he came  out with a proposal for fitting Led battery as Li-On battery was not available in the market and the Complainant on good faith accepted such proposal on 22/01/2024 to that effect endorsed on a document signed by O.P. No.1 according to which the Complainant had to pay Rs.17,878/- being the difference cost of                                           Li-On battery and Led battery  (Rs.37,128/-  minus  Rs.19,250/-)   and after deduction of

                                                                                                                                                                                Contd…..p/2

 

Page: (2)

depreciation value of Rs.9,904/- the Complainant will get back Rs.7,974/- ( Rs.17,878/- minus Rs. 9,904/-) to be returned within one month from that date i.e. 22/01/2024. But after the lapse of one month the Complainant went to the O.P. No.1 and demanded the said money. The Complainant also went to O.P. No.1 physically and demanded the said money by joint letter dated: 25/01/2024 but the O.P. No.1 flatly denied the same. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for appropriate relief.

O. P. No.2 contested the case by filing a written version contending inter alia that it being the Manufacturing company of Li-On battery has no product liability in this case as the manufacturing defect of the battery has not been brought on record.

O.P. No.1 though got sufficient opportunity to file the written version but they did not prefer to file any written version to contest the case.

-: Decision with reasons:-

Having regard to the facts of the case, contention, submission and documents on both sides   the Commission finds that  though the original Li-On battery was fitted to the electric scooter of the Complainant but with the consent and permission of the Complainant the same was replaced within the Warrantee Period by a Led battery  which is cheaper than Li-On battery as is evident from the Agreement dated: 22/01/2024. Early replacement of an original battery  by the Dealer is a sufficient proof of the fact  that the  battery had some inherent defect which is none other than manufacturing defect: Otherwise the O.P./Dealer did not opt to replace the battery by cheaper Led  battery. O.P.1/Dealer is helpless as a  product seller to be sanguine about the longevity of the battery which lies entirely within the knowledge of   O.P. 2/Manufacturer. Thus O.P. No.2 cannot avoid their product liability of the battery which became dead even after service and repair. Supply and sale of defective battery being an vital parts of the electric scooter is a ground of product liability action in terms of Chapter VI of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the O.P. No.2.

So far the liability of O.P.No.1 is concerned it is evident that the buyer has no Complain about the make of the electric scooter save and except the service of Li-On battery thereof. So the liability of the O.P.1/Dealer is confined to his commitment as per agreement  dated: 22/01/2024 to pay back Rs. 7,974/- to the Complainant  within one month from the date of agreement being the differential amount of the cost of Li-On battery and Led battery with deduction of depreciation value. But the O.P. No.1 has  failed to discharge his obligation as per the said agreement by repayment of Rs. 7,974/- to the Complainant which became due  since 22/02/2024. The Complainant is therefore entitled to get back Rs. 7,974/- from O. P. No.1 with cost of Rs.5,000/- for delayed payment. O.P. No.2 is liable to pay to the Complainant Rs.15,000/- as compensation for supply and sale of defective Li-On battery   fitted  with the electric  scooter of the Complainant.

                                                                                                                                                                  Contd…..p/3

 

Page: (3)

                                                                                             Hence it is ordered…….

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest as against O.P. No.2 but Ex-parte against O.P. No.1 but all without cost. O.P. No.1 is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs. 7,974/- with cost of Rs.5,000/- and the O.P. No.2 is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.15,000/- as  compensation all within one month from this date in default law will take its own course.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Order free of cost.

____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER