Yangyel Lhaden

The Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s decision and dismissed the appeal case from 35 Neta V electric vehicle taxi operators against their dealer, Kuenphen Motors, on July 9.

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s decision, which upheld the Thimphu District Court’s judgement, the Neta V taxi operators appealed to the Supreme Court on March 27. Both lower courts had ruled that Kuenphen Motors was not liable to compensate the taxi operators and High Court instead ordered the taxi operators to pay the appeal costs of Nu 3,750 to the dealer.

The Supreme Court’s 17-page judgment provides a detailed progression of the case, from the moment it was registered with the Competition and Consumers Affairs Authority (CCAA). The judgment states that the matter had been sufficiently addressed by the lower courts, with no new developments warranting further proceedings.

The dispute arose in May last year when 40 Neta V taxi operators filed a complaint with CCAA, accusing Kuenphen Motors of delivering a different variant of the Neta V with 384km mileage capacity instead of the advertised 401km range and for charging additional fees exceeding the pre-booking price.

Similarly, 15 MG ZS taxi operators lodged complaints, alleging that the MG ZS electric cars did not meet the advertised mileage of 419km and were delivered with missing parts. They claimed that they received the Sri Lankan version instead of the UK version that was advertised. They asked for refund for the missing vehicle parts.However, there was no evidence of the vehicle being advertised as Sri Lankan or UK version.

The CCAA ordered Kuenphen Motors to pay Nu 30,000 to all aggrieved Neta V and MG ZS customers for failing to deliver the initially advertised vehicle.

Following this, Neta V and MG ZS taxi operators filed a lawsuit against the dealer. The five MG ZS operators appealed till the High Court, which then ordered Kuenphen Motors to compensate Nu 15,000 for the missing vehicle parts.

The Thimphu District Court’s judgment on the Neta V case stated that both parties were equally at fault. The dealer failed to provide the promised vehicle, and the customers did not report the complaint promptly. In addition, the dealer did not brief the buyers about the vehicle specifications, and the customers did not inquire. The court dismissed the pricing issue.

Kuenphen Motors defended its position, stating they conducted awareness and induction programmes on electric vehicles, which was supported by statements from UNDP Bhutan and PMO’s electric vehicle project officials. This defense was upheld by subsequent courts and acknowledged by the Supreme Court, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

A Neta V taxi operator expressed dissatisfaction with the court rulings. He argued that despite presenting evidence, their appeals were dismissed for not reporting the issue on time. “All the courts have ruled against us, claiming we are at fault for not reporting the case on time. However, the exact stipulated reporting time has not been clarified,” one taxi operator said.

He questioned why MG ZS operators, who filed a complaint after a year, received compensation while they did not.

The taxi operators said that the induction course took place after the vehicles arrived, suggesting it should have been provided beforehand and was not specific to Neta V.They also claimed that they received the vehicle manual book two months after the delivery of the vehicles, because of which they could not identify the missing features.

The taxi operator said that while every court has acknowledged that Kuenphen Motors failed to deliver the promised vehicle, no penalties have been imposed on the dealer. “Instead, we are required to pay the dealer.”