SC/30/FA/01/2025 BEFORE THE GOA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANAJI-GOA In the matter of First Appeal No. 01 of 2025 in Consumer Complaint 32 of 2024.

Before: Adv. Mrs. Varsha R. Bale, Officiating President Adv. Ms. Rachna Anna Maria Gonsalves, Member Shri Tushar Vishnu Singnapurkar, r/o H. No. 424/G, Canca Bandh, Opp. Arti Appt., Parra, Bardez, North, Goa. 403510. ..…Appellant V.

Madhav R. Barve, Madhav R. Barve Enterprises, Shop No.1, Srinivas Chamber, Mapusa, Goa. 403507. .....Respondent-1 EMotorad (EM), c/o INKODOP TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, post Jambe, Taluka Mulshi, 169/2, Sangawade, Road, Pune, Maharashtra. 411033. .....Respondent-2 Adv. Shri Vishal Naik present for Appellant.

Adv. Shri Amit Kabadi present for Respondents.

DATE: 21/07/2025 JUDGMENT [per Adv. Mrs. Varsha R. Bale, Officiating President

1. This Appeal is directed against the Judgment & Order dated 30/10/2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, North Goa, (The ‘District Commission’ for short) in Consumer Complaint No. 32/2024. The Appellant was the Complainant and the Respondents were the Opposite Parties (‘OPs’ for short) in the said Complaint. The Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status in the said Complaint.

2. The Complainant had filed the said complaint praying therein to direct the OP to refund the cost of E-Scooter amounting to Rs.49,000/-, to pay the cost of treatment and medical care of Rs.30,000/-, to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries and damages to the body suffered by the Complainant due to negligence on the part of OP, to pay additional compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for further complications and impairments to the body of the Complainant.

3. The case of the Complainant, in short, is as follows:-

That the Complainant purchased E-Bicycle of model ‘Doodle’ by the OP-1 on 07/09/2023 for a consideration of Rs.49,000/-. That the said vehicle was suffering from problem of defective brakes, since the purchase. That the Complainant stated that he first realized the faulty brakes in the month of November 2023. So, he approached the OP-1 for rectification of the faulty brakes to which the OP-1 asked him to replace the brake cable for which Rs.80/- were charged by them. The Complainant further stated that OP-1 failed to carry out proper assessment and rectification of the faulty brakes of the said E-Bicycle. The Complainant made several attempts to resolve the faulty brakes through the ‘after sales’ contact number of the OP-2. That on 21/12/2023, while riding on the slope from Mapusa Court junction to downwards towards the Mapusa market, he realised that the brakes of the said vehicle are not effective. On the same day he complained about faulty brakes. OP-1 told the Complainant to remove the brake pad and bring it to them as a sample and take the replacement from them and install it himself. They failed to rectify the brake fault. On 22/12/2023, at about 10 am, the Complainant took his vehicle to mechanic near Mapusa Court junction to remove the said brake pad of the said vehicle for which the mechanic refused to remove the brake pad stating that he does not have the knowledge and expertise to handle the said vehicle and advised him to approach the dealer for all issues. The Complainant while going to the OP-1 down the stop realized that the brakes cannot control the speed of the cycle and cannot stop. There was complete braking failure of the said bicycle. And at about 500 meters from the Mapusa Court junction the said bicycle met with an accident due to brake failure. The bicycle hit a four wheeler Maruti Ertiga and he was thrown on the road. That the four wheeler driver did not register any police complaint considering that the Complainant was elderly person. The Complainant was taken to Vision Hospital, Mapusa. He suffered comminuted fracture of the right humeral neck bone in his right shoulder. The said humeral bone was fractured at more than 2 places, which has caused seve