DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 29th day of February, 2024.
Filed on: 10/06/2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C. C. No. 290/2022
COMPLAINANT
Seby C.T., S/o. Late Thomas, Chembishery House, Chittoor Road, South Junction, Ernakulam District, Kochi- 682 011.
(Rep. by Adv. Kishore Kumar, Cochin Law Associates, Door No. 62/5194, 3rd Floor, Perumpally Building Complex, Near Maharajas Metro Station, MG Road, Ernakualm 682011)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- Romai Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., Rock Lands, Krishna Temple Road, Madavana, Nettoor P. O., Pin- 682 040.
- M/s. Tasa Trading Company, 3/1060, Kulangara Building, Near HDFC Bank, Unichira, Edappally, Kochi-21, Kerala, India.
- Sev Motors Pvt. Ltd., 16/405C, Kizhavana, Karuvelipady, Thoppumpady, Kochi-05.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. 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 summary outlines a consumer complaint against opposite parties involved in the sale and servicing of an electric vehicle and its battery. The complainant, having purchased a Romai electric vehicle from the first opposite party (the manufacturer) and a battery from the second opposite party (the manufacturer and dealer of the battery), faced issues when the battery failed within the warranty period. The third opposite party is mentioned as the showroom where the vehicle was purchased.
The core of the complaint revolves around the battery failure on May 15, 2022, and the subsequent service mishandling by the second opposite party's technicians, who, without proper inspection, declared the battery defective and demanded service charges despite the battery being under warranty. The technicians' behaviour escalated to misbehaving with the complainant and allegedly trying to damage the vehicle, with the incident supposedly caught on nearby CCTV cameras, although footage could not be obtained due to the lodge owner's refusal, influenced by the opposite parties.
The complainant's efforts to resolve the issue through official channels with the second opposite party went unanswered, and the lack of cooperation from the first and third parties compounded the grievance. The situation led to inconvenience and additional expenses for the complainant, who had to rely on alternative transportation methods since the vehicle was inoperable.
As a result, the complainant seeks legal redress from the consumer commission, requesting compensation for the defective battery, reimbursement for the inconvenience and expenses incurred, and punitive damages for the alleged negligence and deficient service provided by the opposite parties. The complaint highlights issues of consumer rights, warranty enforcement, and service quality within the context of electric vehicle maintenance and support.
2) Notice
The Commission sent notices to the opposite parties. However, they did not submit their versions, and as a result, the case was set to proceed ex parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant did not file a proof affidavit; however, they produced 5 documents along with the complaint before the commission, which were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-5.
Exhibit A-1: Battery bill dated 10.06.2021 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Exhibit A-2: Office copy of the Lawyer's Notice dated 18.05.2022.
Exhibit A-3: Postal receipt of the Lawyer's Notice dated 18.05.2022.
Exhibit A-4: Acknowledgement card dated 21.05.2021.
Exhibit A-5: Owner's manual issued by the 1st opposite parties (Relevant - Page no.22).
4) The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint 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 get 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 answered as follows:
The complainant has consistently failed to attend hearings related to their case since September 24, 2022. Despite the commission's efforts to engage the complainant by issuing directions for them to appear and submit a proof affidavit, and by contacting him from the office of the commission directly on October 5, 2023, and November 23, 2023, to inform them of upcoming hearings, the complainant has not complied. The complainant did not submit a proof affidavit and did not adhere to the required procedures outlined in the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Despite being given several chances, the complainant consistently neglected to provide a proof affidavit. This ongoing pattern of non-attendance and failure to present evidence has left the commission with no alternative but to proceed with resolving the complaint based on the available evidence. The complainant's disinterest in pursuing the case, evidenced by their failure to comply with procedural requirements and to make further appearances before the commission, has necessitated this course of action.
In the catena of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that:
“19. The onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is the complainant who had approached the Commission, therefore, without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service. In a Judgement of this Court reported as Ravneet Singh Bagga v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines & Anr. 4, this court held that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is upon the person who alleges it. “
The Commission proceeded to analyze these issues in detail:
In a series of decisions, it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the Commission. Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant's case. As stated in the case of SGS India Ltd Vs. Dolphin International Ltd (2021 AIR SC 4849), "the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in complaints under the Consumer Protection Act." It is the complainant who approached the Commission, and without any proof of deficiency, the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.
In conclusion, the Commission finds that the complainant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims of deficiency in service or negligence by the opposite party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and no relief is granted to the complainant.
We have decided not in favour of the complainant on all the issues mentioned above. After careful consideration, we found that the case presented by the complainant is meritless. As a result, the following orders have been issued.
ORDER
Based on the aforementioned circumstances, the Commission has determined that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this is the 29th day of February, 2024.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT EVIDENCE
Exhibit A-1: Battery bill dated 10.06.2021 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Exhibit A-2: Office copy of the Lawyer's Notice dated 18.05.2022.
Exhibit A-3: Postal receipt of the Lawyer's Notice dated 18.05.2022.
Exhibit A-4: Acknowledgement card dated 21.05.2021.
Exhibit A-5: Owner's manual issued by the 1st opposite parties
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 290/2022
Order Date: 29/02/2024
