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  rectify  the defect of  vehicle or to pay Rs.91,000/- towards the price of scooter and also pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation  to the complainant  for the mental agony.

Complaint in brief :-

   The complainant had purchased  BNR BLISS 60V 26AH electric scooter worth Rs.91,000/- from 1^st OP, which was manufactured by 2^nd OP.  The payment by complainant to 1^st OP was made on different  dates and on 15/5/2023 the vehicle was delivered to him.  On the very same day, defect of the vehicle was noticed and was informed to 1^st OP and the 1^st OP assured that it will replaced as and when the spare parts became available.  But to the utter dismay, complainant found that 1^st OP shop was closed and there was no response.  Due to the deficiency in service from the part of OPs, complainant was unable to use the vehicle for his personal as well as professional purpose and thereby he sustained financial loss and mental hardship and hence this complaint.

           After filing the complaint,  commission sent notice to both OPs .  Notice to 1^st OP returned with an endorsement as “Refused intimation”.  Hence the notice is deemed to be  properly  sent.    The 1^st  OP is  not  appeared before the commission and not filed any version. So the  commission came to be  proceed against the 1^st  OP is set exparte. 2^nd OP received notice and  not  appeared before the commission and not filed any version. So the  commission came to be  proceed against the 2^nd  OP is set exparte.  After that 2^nd OP filed vakalath and  filed  set aside petition and it was dismissed.  So both OPs are set exparte.

     Even though, the OPs have remained ex-parte, it is for the complainant to establish the allegation made by him against the  OP.  Hence the  complainant was  called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents.  Accordingly the  complainant  has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 7 documents  marked as Exts.A1 to A7.  Ext.A1 is the  tax invoice issued by 1^st  OP dtd.28/4/2023, Ext.A2 is the warranty card issued by 2^nd OP dtd.15/5/2023,  Ext.A3 is the copy of lawyer notice, Ext.A4 is the returned registered cover with A/D.  Ext.A5 is the copy of  screen shot of payment. Ext.A6 is the photographs  6 in numbers and Ext.A7 is the CD.  The complainant was examined as PW1. So the OPs remain absent in this case.  At the end the commission heard the case on merit.

           Let us have a clear glance in to the evidence  before the commission to answer  whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of  OPs as prayed.  Accordingly, the commission perused Ext.A1, which shows that the payment  of Rs.91,000/- to 1^st OP by complainant for the vehicle he purchased seems to be apparent. Ext.A2 , the warranty policy reveals that if any of  the defect or defects found in two wheeler within 24 months or 50000 Kms whichever is earlier, the seller/dealer will be obligated to repair or replace at his sole discretion at no cost to the  owner  for the parts and labour.  According to the  complainant the delivery date was  on 15/5/2023 and hence its  comes under the warranty coverage. Ext.A3 lawyer notice dtd.25/9/2023 shows that the complainant had taken all initial measures to get the defect repaired.  The said notice sent to 1^st OP is returned with  an endorsement “ shop closed”.  So, the complainant is not  in a position to redress his grievance.  Exts.A6&A7  are the photographs and CD produced by the complainant shows that there is some damage on the deck where the rider can place  their foot. Hence  , the commission came into a presumption that, on the basis of all  exhibits  produced before them that the both OPs are liable for the deficiency in service.  So the commission  is in the view that both OPs are liable to rectify the defect occurred to the vehicle at  free of cost and hence complainant also entitled to get compensation and cost.

          In the result complaint is allowed in part.  Both opposite parties are directed to rectify the  defect occurred to the vehicle in issue ,at free of cost to the complainant and also the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation  for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days of receipt of this order. . In default both OPs are directed to pay the cost of vehicle  ie, Rs.91,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant. At the time of payment, the opposite parties are  at liberty to take back the vehicle in issue   from the complainant. If the opposite parties are failed to comply the order, complainant is at liberty to file execution application against opposite parties as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019. 

Exts:

A1-   Tax invoice

A2-Warranty card.

A3-lawyer notice

A4- returned notice

A5-copy of screen shot of  google pay

A6- Photographs

A7- CD

PW1-Balan.A    -Complainant

Sd/                                                                  Sd/                                              Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                       MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR