The commission heard ex-parte arguments of the counsel for the complainant and went through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by him.The district consumer disputes redressal commission has ordered an EV scooter manufacturer and its authorized dealer to refund invoice value (Rs 65,000) of an e-scooter to a buyer after it developed defect after he bought it. The commission also ordered the opposite parties M/s Seth Industrial Corporation, Industrial Estate, Ludhiana, and Mushtaq Cycle Rickshaw Works, Malerkotla, to pay a composite cost of Rs. 5,000 to the complainant Vidya Sagar Jindal of Raikot in Ludhiana District.
As per the complaint, Jindal had purchased an e-Scooter from Mushtaq Cycle Rickshaw Works on Dec 21, 2022, for Rs.65,000. However, on the next morning of purchase of the e-scooter, it did not start despite several efforts after which the complainant approached the seller, who failed to redress his grievance despite several requests.
Thereafter, the complainant approached the manufacturer with a request to rectify the defect by repairing the e-scooter, but nothing was done. The complainant wrote many representations to the opposite parties, but to no effect.
The complainant further stated that he got the said e-scooter checked from other mechanic and came to know that the electric sector controller of the said scooter was not in working condition. As such, the complainant got repaired the same from other dealer and paid Rs 3,500, but despite that the e-scooter was not in working condition. The opposite parties have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice . Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the opposite parties.
The commission heard ex-parte arguments of the counsel for the complainant and went through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by him.
"A person who had purchased a new product is not expected to visit again and again to get the defect removed," the commission remarked. It held that despite the repair of the e-scooter from another dealer, the vehicle had been giving problems and as such, the complainant had right to file the present complaint.
The commission observed that thereafter, the complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the product and repeatedly approached them for replacement of the e-scooter. It held that even several E-mails were also sent to the opposite parties, but nothing favourable came from them after which it ruled in the complainanat's favour.
