Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6)   That is what brought the appellant before this Commission in appeal.

7)   Registered notice under AD cover was sent to the respondents who never appeared inspite of sufficient service and were proceeded with ex-parte. Ex-parte arguments of the appellant heard. File perused.

8)   The appellant in its appeal assailed the order of the District Forum on the ground that, the District Forum had not appreciated her version which was supported by an affidavit and the same remained un-rebutted and further stated that inspite of her submissions in the complaint that, the e-bike was taken to the workshop of respondent-1 seventeen times and ultimately that was left with the OP-1/respondent-1 on 23.04.2011 and since then the bike is with the dealer who had not handed over the same after rectification of the defects to her itself shows that the e-bike is defectively designed/manufactured product and had been launched in the market without testing the same vigorously for its roadworthiness before launching the same in the market, which amounts to unfair trade practice and not repairing the bike inspite of many visits even during the warranty period, constitute the deficiency in providing service on the part of the respondents/OPs.