E-Paper
Selling faulty e-motorbike to Panchkula man costs company, dealer dear
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum penalised an electric two- wheeler company and a dealer for selling a faulty electric motorbike to a Sector 28 man and not resolving the technical problem related to it. The forum directed Okinawa Autotech Private Limited, Gurugram, and Narang Automobiles, Industrial Area, Panchkula, to refund ₹37,800 to complainant Amrit Lal.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum penalised an electric two- wheeler company and a dealer for selling a faulty electric motorbike to a Sector 28 man and not resolving the technical problem related to it.
The forum directed Okinawa Autotech Private Limited, Gurugram, and Narang Automobiles, Industrial Area, Panchkula, to refund ₹37,800 to complainant Amrit Lal. The opposite parties were also directed to pay ₹7,000 on account of mental agony and harassment besides ₹ 5,500 as litigation charges.
On January 29, 2018, Lal had purchased an electric motorbike worth ₹42,000.
The complainant said for the first three months, the vehicle had given an average performance with small problems and he kept informing the dealer’s executives.In April, 2018, he faced an issue with the controller, which was replaced, but the technical issue did not get resolved and the dealer had to replace the controller again. Later in August, the vehicle started had issues with the suspension and shocker system.
Later, the vehicle’s motor was replaced, but instead of the condition of the vehicle getting better, its batteries started providing low mileage. Following its inspection, out of total 5 batteries of the vehicle, 4 batteries were found to be intact, but one battery was providing low amp hour. So, they replaced the faulty battery in December 2018. The complainant again took the vehicle to the dealer, where it was reported that out of total 5 batteries of the vehicle, 4 batteries got bulged and could not release the required amp hour. However, instead of sorting the problem, the dealer informed him that as per the instructions of the company, the replacement of batteries could not be done as the same had bulged.
Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared to contest the complaint, but they did not file their written statement despite availing several opportunities. Therefore, their defence was stuck off by the forum. Considering the facts, the forum observed that, if the company fitted some spare parts such as tyre, tubes and batteries, it was their duty to ensure about the standard and quality of such product fitted into the vehicle and sold to the customer as integral part of the vehicle.
