IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Monday the  29^th    day of  January, 2024

Filed on: 05.09.2023

Present

1. Smt. P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB  (President in Charge )
2. Smt.  C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.253/2023

     between

          Sri. SudheepKumar.S                                     1.         The Manager,  OLA Electric Technologies Pvt Ltd

Thundutharayil                                                            3^rd Floor, 414, Regent Insignia, 100 Feet Road,        

Pilappuzha, Harippad.P.O                                          Koramgala, Banglore, Karnataka-560034

Alappuzha-690514                                                                                    

(Party in person)                                       2.         The Manager, OLA Electric Experience Centre

                                                            Mavelikkara,  Moolaparambil Complex, 302/A

                                                            Thattarambalam, Thrikkunnappuzha Road,

                                                            Thattarambalam, Mavelikkara-690103

                                                3.         The Manager, TATA Capital,  Cochin

                                                            Ground Floor,  Jain Tower-2, NH-17

                                                            Edappally, Near Lulu Mall, Kochi-682024

                                                            (Exparte)

 O R D E R

SMT. SHOLY.P.R (PRESIDENT IN CHARGE)

         Complaint filed u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

1.         Complainant’s case briefly stated is as follows:-

 Complainant had booked Ola Electric Scooter from 2^nd opposite party by paying advance amount of Rs. 17,570/- on 2/8/2023 and received  the payment confirmation receipt. It was assured by Mr. Asif, one of the  executives of the  Ola company that the vehicle will be delivered within 14 days.  But the vehicle was not delivered even after 34 days from booking. However the  3^rd opposite party, from which the finance arranged for purchasing the vehicle,  demanded for paying 1^st instalment of the loan @ Rs. 4,408/-

It was told by Ms. Aiswarya Nair.G, the executive of 3^rd  opposite party that the interest rate is 8.9% and as such executed the loan agreement. At the time of signing the agreement  it was told that the  EMI amount for loan amount Rs. 1,51,334/- @ 8.9% simple interest will be Rs. 4,275.18/- for  a period of 48 months. Though the  changing of rate of  interest was questioned by the complainant, it was fruitless.  As per the said calculation the amount payable to the 3^rd opposite party will be Rs. 2,11,584/- (Rs. 4,408 x 48 months) instead of Rs. 2,05,208 (Rs.4275.18 x 48 months) and accordingly the  complainant is liable to be paid  an excess amount of Rs. 6375/- to 3^rd opposite party.  In the said circumstance the complaint had to pay EMI amount without  getting the vehicle and will be loss of a huge amount in future.  Hence alleging  unfair trade practice, filed this complaint for speedy delivery of the vehicle and refund of the amount to be obtained as excess in future transaction along with compensation and cost.

          Notice along with the copy of complaint served to opposite parties 1 to 3. In response to the  notice opposite parties 1 and 2 appeared through counsel and 3^rd opposite party remained exparte.

2.       Points raised for consideration are :-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as sought for in the complaint?

3. Reliefs and costs?

3.       Points No. 1 and 2:-

          The matter referred to mediation. Though the dispute was not settled in mediation, it was settled between the complainant and opposite parties 1 and 2 out of court and  subsequently the complainant endorsed that he received Rs. 7000/- from opposite parties 1 and 2  hence  agreed to delete the opposite parties 1 and 2 from party array.   In the said circumstance the reliefs sought for from the side of opposite parties 1 and 2 are suspended and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are exonerated from the complaint.

          Thereafter the complaint remains only against the 3^rd opposite party and since  they became exparte the complainant adduced exparte evidence. Complainant filed proof affidavit seeking reliefs only against 3^rd opposite party along with 4 documents.  The  said documents marked as Ext.A1 to A4. Ext.A1 is the call history between the complainant and executive of TATA Capital. Ext.A2 to A4 are whatsapp messages.

          Complainant’s case is that he had booked Ola  Electric scooter from 2^nd opposite party which manufactured by 1^st opposite party by paying down payment of Rs. 17,570/- on 2/8/2023. Though the  executive of the company assured the delivery of the vehicle within  14 days from booking it was not delivered even  after 34 days of booking.  In the  meantime before getting the vehicle 3^rd opposite party, the financier of the  vehicle loan demanded 1^st EMI @ of Rs. 4,408/-.  It was against the  agreement told by the executive of  3^rd opposite party. According to the  complainant as per agreed rate of interest ie, @ 8.9% per annum the complainant is liable  to pay only Rs. 2,05,208/- (4275.18 x 48). But as per the present EMI of Rs. 4,408/- the total amount payable would came @ Rs. 2,11,584/-.  Hence an amount of Rs.6,375/-  will be lost to the complainant. Though Ext.A4 shows the rate of interest as 17.53% in the other documents of whatsapp chat between the complainant  and  3^rd opposite party it revealed that the agreed rate of interest for the particular loan is @ 8.9%.  In the said circumstance the  3^rd opposite party has no right to collect an interest  exceeding from 8.9% from the complainant. Considering  the facts and circumstances of the  case we cannot order refund of an amount which will become a future liability. Accordingly as pointed out by the complainant and realizing the  disputed matter and  in the absence of  contrary evidence we  direct the 3^rd opposite party to refix the EMI rate as per the agreed rate of interest @ 8.9 %.  As discussed earlier 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party are exonerated from the complaint. These points are answered accordingly.

4.       Point No. 3:-

 In the result complaint stands  allowed in the following  terms:-

1.   3^rd opposite party is directed to refix the EMI amount in connection  with the  vehicle loan  of the complainant as agreed at the time of agreement @ 8.9% per annum.

2. Complainant is entitled Rs.1000/- (Rupees  One Thousand only) from the opposite parties as cost of  proceedings.

The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the  29^th      day of  January, 2024.

                                             Sd/- Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)

         Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

Ext.A1                       -           Call history

Ext.A2                       -           Whatsapp messages

Ext.A3                       -           Whatsapp messages

Ext.A4                       -           Whatsapp messages

Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil

// True Copy //

To        

            Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                                           By Order

                                                                                                                     Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-