State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S Go Green Bikes Private Limited vs Anita Sood on 16 December, 2025
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
U.T., CHANDIGARH
[ADDITIONAL BENCH]
Appeal No. : 64 of 2025
Date of Institution : 17.01.2025
Date of Decision : 16.12.2025
M/s Go Green Bikes, through its ex-proprietor, Mr. Jiten Jindal, #413/2,
Top Floor, Sector 38-A, Chandigarh - 160036
....Appellants/Opposite Party No.1
Versus
1] Anita Sood wife of Sh. Sandeep Kumar, aged about 40 years, resident
of House No.3985, Sector 25-D,Chandigarh - 160025
...Respondent/Complainant
2] M/s Hero Electric Vehicle Private Limited, # 57, Udyog Vihar, Phase
IV, Sector 18, Gurugram Haryana -122015 through its Managing
Director
...Respondent/Opposite Party No.2
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
SH. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-
Sh. Pulkit Jain, Advocate for the appellant alongwith Sh. Jiten Jindal, Proprietor of the appellant in person Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.1 Respondent No.2 ex-parte (vide order dated 09.07.2025) PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by opposite party No.1 - M/s Go Green Bikes (appellant herein) for setting aside order dated 04.11.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as 'District Commission') vide which, Consumer Complaint bearing No.285 of 2024 filed by the complainant (respondent No.1 herein) has been partly allowed against the opposite parties (including the appellant), by granting following relief:-2
"4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-
(i) to repair/replace the defective part i.e. motor of the subject electric scooter free of cost and make it functional.
(ii) to pay a lump-sum amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and a towards cost of litigation;
5. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days till realisation, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(i)."
2] In brief, the case of the complainant before the District Commission was that on 29.3.2023, on the assurances of opposite party No.1 regarding the features of the electric scooter manufactured by opposite party No.2, the complainant purchased a POTON LP Electric Scooter for a total consideration of Rs.93,000/- through GPay, inclusive of insurance and registration, with three years warranty. From the very beginning, the scooter suffered from several defects including uncontrolled automatic running, defective main lock, brake wire issues and ultimately motor failure in December 2023, rendering the scooter unusable. Despite repeated visits to the workshop of opposite party No.1, assurances, delayed and incomplete repairs, replacement of parts without proper job sheets and continuous follow-ups through visits and emails, the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects. Even after submission of all requisite documents and assurances that the issue would be resolved within 45 days, the defect remained unresolved. The scooter, as per the complainant, was having manufacturing 3 defects and the failure of the opposite parties to repair or replace the defective scooter amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. 3] On the other hand, the opposite parties did not turn up before the District Commission despite proper service and as such, they were proceeded against exparte by the District Commission vide order dated 01.07.2024.
4] The complainant led evidence in support of her case before the District Commission.
5] The District Commission, after hearing arguments and considering the documentary evidence led by the complainant, partly allowed the consumer complaint, as stated above.
6] The order has been assailed by the appellant/opposite party No.1 on the ground that it has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the appellant was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The appellant contends that being merely a dealer and not the manufacturer, it cannot be held liable for any manufacturing defects, the responsibility of which lies solely with respondent No.2, as supported by the Dealership Agreement dated 14.07.2021 and extensive email correspondence showing repeated efforts to resolve the issue. It has further been stated that despite submitting the claim and issuing more than 35 reminders, respondent No.2 failed to supply necessary replacement parts, rendering the appellant incapable of addressing the complainant's grievances. It has further been stated that there is no negligence, misrepresentation or malfeasance on the part of the appellant and that it acted in good faith and in compliance with law. Reliance has been placed on various judgments to contend that a dealer cannot be made liable for manufacturing defects. Lastly prayer for setting aside the impugned order and dismissal of the consumer complaint has been made by the appellants. 7] On behalf of respondent No.1 - complainant, it has been contended that the appeal is misconceived, frivolous and not maintainable, as the impugned order is a well-reasoned and speaking order passed after due consideration of pleadings and evidence. It has further been stated that the plea of ex-parte proceedings is untenable since notice was duly served at 4 the correct address and deliberate non-appearance cannot be a ground to invoke principles of natural justice. It has further been stated that the District Commission rightly held the dealer and manufacturer jointly and severally liable, as consumer law is beneficial legislation and liability cannot be avoided by shifting blame. Reliance has been placed on Vikas Motors Ltd. v. Dr. P.K. Kaushik, holding that a dealer cannot escape liability merely by claiming to be not the manufacturer. It has further been stated that under the provisions of Sections 2(37), 2(42) and 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the appellant, having sold the product, received consideration and assured after-sale services, squarely falls within the definition of product seller and service provider. It has further been stated that the admitted failure of the appellant to replace defective parts and provide proper after- sale service amounted to deficiency and the so-called dispute between dealer and manufacturer cannot prejudice the consumer. It has further been stated that the precedents relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable, while the impugned order is in consonance with law, equity and settled principles, warranting no interference. Lastly prayer for dismissal of the appeal with costs has been made by respondent No.1 - complainant. 8] Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, the pleadings on record, the impugned order, written arguments and the settled position of law, we find no merit whatsoever in the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant/opposite party No.1 and the same deserve outright rejection, as the impugned order neither suffers from perversity nor from any violation of principles of natural justice. The record clearly demonstrates that the appellant was duly served with notice at its correct address but the appellant refused to accepted the same as is evident from the endorsement affixed by the Postal Department and despite such service, it chose to remain absent before the District Commission, as a result whereof it was rightly proceeded against ex-parte. It is a settled proposition of law that a party who deliberately refused accepting a notice and avoids appearance after due service & knowledge of the pendency of a litigation cannot later claim violation of natural justice and refusal or avoidance of service cannot be permitted to become a tool to frustrate 5 judicial proceedings. The District Commission, therefore, committed no illegality in proceeding ex-parte and passing the order on the basis of pleadings and evidence produced by the complainant. 9] The contention of the appellant that it was denied an opportunity of being heard is thus an afterthought and is wholly untenable. Further, the District Commission has passed a detailed, reasoned and speaking order after carefully appreciating the documentary evidence and the legal position governing warranty obligations and deficiency in service. It is evident from the findings recorded that although the complainant failed to establish inherent manufacturing defect by way of expert evidence, the District Commission did not mechanically allow the complaint in toto but rather applied the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble National Commission to grant only such relief which was legally permissible, namely, repair or replacement of defective parts under warranty. This itself reflects due application of mind and balanced adjudication.
10] The appellant's plea that being a dealer it cannot be held liable is equally devoid of substance. The admitted facts on record establish that the appellant sold the subject electric scooter to the complainant, received the sale consideration, assured after-sale services and entertained the complaints regarding defects. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, particularly Sections 2(37), 2(42) and 2(47), a dealer who sells a product and undertakes to provide after-sale service squarely falls within the definition of "product seller" and "service provider" and cannot wash off its liability by merely shifting the blame upon the manufacturer. Consumer law is remedial and beneficial in nature and does not permit a consumer to be made to run from pillar to post between the dealer and the manufacturer. The District Commission has rightly held the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to the limited extent of curing the defect under warranty, which is fully in consonance with the statutory scheme and judicial precedents. The reliance placed by the appellant on the dealership agreement and internal correspondence with the manufacturer is of no consequence vis-à-vis the complainant, who is not a party to such 6 arrangements and cannot be denied relief on account of inter se disputes between the dealer and the manufacturer. From the consumer's perspective, the appellant remained the first point of contact and was responsible for rendering effective after-sale service, which admittedly did not materialize as the scooter remained non-functional due to motor defect despite repeated visits and follow-ups.
11] The plea of the appellant that replacement parts were not supplied by the manufacturer does not absolve the appellant of deficiency in service, as inability arising out of internal coordination issues cannot be a defence against a consumer claim. The judgments relied upon by the appellant are clearly distinguishable on facts, whereas the law laid down in Vikas Motors Ltd. v. Dr. P.K. Kaushik (supra) squarely applies, wherein it has been held that the dealer cannot escape liability merely by contending that it is not the manufacturer. The District Commission has, in fact, followed the ratio of Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & anr., II (2006) CPJ 3 (SC), Hyundai Motor India Ltd. vs. Er. Gopal K. Sahi & anr., III (2009) CPJ 131 (NC) and Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. B.G. Thakur Desai & anr., II(1993) CPJ 225(NC) to deny refund or replacement of the entire vehicle and has confined the relief strictly to repair/replacement of defective parts, thereby fully protecting the interests of both sides within the framework of law.
12] The argument of the appellant that there was no cause of action against the appellant is wholly misconceived, as the privity of contract between the complainant and the appellant stands admitted through invoice, payment and warranty obligations. The allegation of mala fide impleadment is equally baseless and unsupported by any material. On the contrary, the findings recorded by the District Commission clearly establish deficiency in service to the extent of failure to cure the defect during the warranty period. The impugned order, thus, reflects correct appreciation of facts, evidence and law and does not call for any interference. 13] In view of the foregoing discussion, this Commission finds that the District Commission committed no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order dated 04.11.2024. The grounds raised 7 by the appellants/opposite party No.1 are devoid of merit and are hereby rejected. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order is upheld. No order as to costs.
14] Pending application(s), if any, in this appeal also stands dismissed having been rendered infructous.
15] Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
16] File be consigned to Record Room after completion. Pronounced 16.12.2025.
(PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER *Ad* 8 STATE COMMISSION