In this particular case before the Medak District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the complainant (No.1) stated that they purchased the vehicle being Electric Scooter (Falcon) Benling, from opposite party (No.2), the retailer and dealer of the Opposite party (No.1) Manufacturer on 07th April, 2021 and Complainant No.2 used the same.
The complainants contended that they charged the e-Scooter every day adhering to the instructions of the manufacturer. The e-Scooter was stated not to have driven in an overload condition or for a long distance or charged under the sunlight. Further, it was never kept turned on in charging position even after the battery was fully charged, nor was it driven in rain or in water-clogged areas.
The case of the complainants was that on 26th February, 2023, 11:30pm, the e- Scooter was kept on charging and at about 2:30am on 27th February, 2023, it exploded and led to a massive fire incident, where e- Scooter was completely burned. The complainants alleged that the incident traumatized their entire family and their tenants, and they could not have a proper sleep for days after the fire incident in the fear of that gloomy incident. The complainants further alleged that the smoke was all over the house, which caused breathing difficulties, and it took at least a day to get the air cleared as the smoke settled on the ceilings, and exterior walls.
The complainants submitted that they informed the manufacturer of the e- Scooter about the explosion through an email, and in reply were directed to contact a person, which they did, and sent him all the photos of the incident. They further submitted that they had also filed a police report, which was pending for investigation.
The complainants put forth that though they had complained of the incident, the opposite parties had neither visited the place nor replied to the issues of the complainants and thus they complainants had to issue a legal notice through their counsel.
The complainants sought a replacement of the e- Scooter, coupled with damages of Rs.13,50,000/- and Rs. 40,000 as litigation expenses. In the alternative, they claimed compensation equivalent to the purchase price of the e- Scooter, along with an interest of 18 per cent per annum. However, the said claim was not substantiated with documentary evidence of such loss/damage sustained by them.
The Commission served notices upon all the parties, including the manufacturer and the dealer of the e- Scooter, but they did not appear. Accordingly, the commission passed an ex-parte order.
The Commission noted that a product is required to meet the common expectations of a consumer, therefore, manufacturers and the sellers are under the responsibility to ensure the safety and quality of the product as per their description. It observed that battery explosion of an e-vehicle could be caused owing to various reasons, and thus, the onus lay upon the manufacturer to understand the reasons for such explosion and to take remedial measures. Benling company was held to be negligent in doing so, without even caring for giving a reply to the notice, or appear before the commission.
The Commission viewed that the product liability law laid down that the consumers had legal remedies for any injuries suffered from a defective product supplied by the manufacturers and sellers, and consumers who suffered from any damages owing to a defective product could directly ‘confront the manufacturer and seller’ as the product liability was strict, without even proof of actual negligence.
The Commission emphasized that section 84 to 86 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 dealt with the product liability, under which a consumer could claim remedy against a product manufacturer and laid that if the goods were unreasonably dangerous and were defective, they were likely to jeopardize the safety of a reasonable user.
The Commission on the basis of the materials placed before it concluded that the complainants were entitled to damages, not only for the defective e-vehicle and services, but also owing to their strict product liability.
The Commission allowed the complaint in part, and directed the manufacturer and dealer to jointly and severally make good the cost of the e-vehicle to the complainants and along with 9.5% depreciation per year or to replace the e-vehicle in place of paying such cost.
It directed a payment of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. 10 lakh) as damages for the defective e-vehicle, and litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
A coram of President Gajjala Venkateshwarlu and member Makyam Vijay Kumar of the Medak NCDRC heard and decided the issue.
CASE NAME: Mrs. Kandi Shailaza and Anr. Vs. M/S. Benling India Energy And Technology Pvt.Ltd and Anr. (Decided on 29th December, 2023).
Aditya Paul, 5th Year Student, Adamas University, Intern Under Legal Vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments