SC/30/FA/36/2024 BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI-GOA In the matter of First Appeal 36 of 2024 in Consumer Complaint

41 of 2023.

Before Mrs. Varsha R. Bale, Officiating President Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member Mrs. Jaswinder Kaur, w/o. Bhupinder Singh, Aged 34 years, R/o. Flat No. 705/803, Elements by Shantilal, Near Joggers Park, Airport Road, Chicalim, Goa 403711. ..……Appellant V.

M/s. Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., Head Office, Plot No. 57, Udyog Vihar IV, Sector 18 Gurugram, Haryana 122015. .…..Respondent-1 M/s. Ravi Motors, Hero Electric Authorised Dealer, Shahupuri 6th lane, Pant Balekundri, Bhaji Market, Kolhapur, Maharashtra 416202. .…..Respondent-2 M/s. Bandodkar E Motors, Shop No.S-27 and S-28 Khadpabandh Gardens, Khadpabandh Ponda, North Goa 403401. .…..Respondent-3 M/s. Hero Electric Vehicle Pvt. Ltd., Through its dealer, Bavaria Auto, Ravalnath Estate Opp. Teleigao Football Ground, Caranzalem, Panaji, Goa 403002. .…..Respondent-4 Adv. Ms. Sangeeta Kaur present for Appellant Respondent Nos.1,2,3 & 4 absent.

DATE: 08/10/2025 JUDGEMENT [per Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member]

1. This Judgment and Order shall dispose off First Appeal

36/2024 filed by the Appellant challenging the Judgement and Order dated 04/10/2024 in CC/41/2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, South Goa at Margao (District Commission for short), wherein the District Commission was pleased to dismiss the Complaint.

2. For sake of brevity the Appellant herein before this Commission was the Original Complainant before District Commission, South and the Respondent-1 was Opposite Party-1, (Manufacturer), Respondent-2 was Opposite Party- 2 the main dealer, Respondent-3 was Opposite Party-3 sub dealer of Opposite Party-1, Respondent-4 was Opposite Party-4 through its dealer. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to their status as per the complaint.

3. The brief facts are as under:-

A. The case of the Complainant is:-

i. That the Complainant is a consumer and the Opposite Party-1 is a Manufacturer, and Opposite Party No. 2 to 4 are the Authorised Dealers and service providers for the Opposite Party No.1.

ii. The Complainant had purchased an electric two-wheeler being a “Hero E-Bike”, model “NyxHs500 Er Silver” with Chassis No.MEPHENYNB118L0102, Motor No. HENY1902480129, which was Manufactured by the Opposite Party-1 and was invoiced and purchased vide invoice bearing No.197 dated 14/01/2021 for an amount of Rs.99, 988/- (Rupees ninety nine thousand nine hundred and eighty-eight only) from Opposite Party-3 who represented to be a sub-dealer of Opposite Party-1.However, invoice bearing No.197 was generated through Opposite Party-2 who was alleged to be the main dealer as represented by the Opposite Party-3.

iii. That the said e-bike was purchased by the Complainant and used by the husband of the Complainant. On 28/06/2021, barely six months from the date of purchase, the battery of the said e-bike developed a snag rendering it unusable and Opposite Party-3 upon being contacted, expressed inability to visit the location and/or have the said e-bike transported and after much coaxing, the technician of Opposite Party-3 made a visit, for which a cost of Rs. 400/- was paid by the Complainant’s husband, although the said e-bike was under warranty.

iv. Thereafter on 30/06/2021, the said e-bike was transported to the workshop of Opposite Party-3 to have the snag rectified. However, when an attempt was made to ride the said e-bike, the battery developed a snag half way thereby rendering the said e-bike unusable for which it had to be returned back to the workshop of Opposite Party-3 and Opposite Party-3 tried to shrug off all the responsibility and claimed that the said e-bike was being roughly used hence resulting in frequent snags. Then on 09/07/2021, the Complainant’s husband was informed that a senior technician from the office of Opposite Party-2 will visit the workshop of Opposite Party-3, but