Delhi

North

CC/205/2018

VIRENDER JAISWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

BUILDGREEN ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTOR - Opp.Party(s)

RAJA RAM TRIPATHI

14 Dec 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No.: 205/2018

 

In the matter of

 

Sh. Virender Jaiswal

S/o Sh. Ram Piyare

 G-362, Gali No. 18,

West Karawal Nagar,

 Delhi-110094.

 

Also at:-

 F-Block, 346,

West Karawal Nagar,

Delhi-110094.                                                                               .Complainant         

                                                           Versus

1. Buildgreen Electrical Distributor,

LLP through it Proprietor

 Sh. Sachin Gupta,

 553, Espalanade Road,

Chandni Chowk, Delhi-110006

 

 2. Sristi Auto Mobiles

Through its Proprietor

Shop No. 9 & 9A,

Hari Singh Market,

Kotla Road,

Kotla Village, Delhi-110091                                                 . ...Opposite Parties 

 

ORDER/

14/12/2023

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

1.       The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint in hand, are that the complainant had purchased a E-rickshaw from opposite party No. 1 on 19/3/2018 for a sum of Rs. 1,06,400/-including interest which would be repaid in installment till August, 2019 and in discharge of  liability, the complainant had given Rs. 50,000/- in cash and 17 cheque bearing No. 356891 to 356907 and the OP No. 1 has issued the receipt in the name of the complainant from opposite party No. 2. After this, the complainant came to know that cheques, which were taken by the above named opposite party No. 1, have been credited in the account of opposite party No. 2.  Initially, the complainant has no knowledge about the same, because the complainant knew only opposite party no. 1. After three months since purchasing the E-rickshaw, the above said E-ricksaw started creating problems and the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and informed about the said problems in the said E-rickshaw, then the opposite party No. 1 given assurance that the two battery out of four battery of the E-rickshaw would be replaced but in between the above said two battery started creating problems and were not working properly. The complainant further informed the opposite party No. 1 regarding the said battery but the opposite party No. 1 did not replace the battery and applied delaying tactics to get the warranty expired. It has further been alleged that when he requested the OPs about this issue, the OP-2 stated that he is also waitng for expiry of the battery. The verbatim given in the complainant has been mentioned as “SACHIN GUPTА КЕНТА HAI ME ISHKI KA INTEZAR KAR RAHA HOON".  When the complainant raised   objection about this, the opposite party No. 1 threatened the complainant that "AGAR MERE SE KUCH BHI BOLA UTHWALUNGA TERA RICKSHAW”. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 has obtained signature of the complainant on some blank papers on the pretext that there is requirement for replacement of battery. After this, the complainant several times made request with the opposite parties and made several telephonic calls but they did not pay any heed on the request. Ultimately the complainant on  25/8/2018 lodged a complaint vide DD No. 32-B dated 25/8/2018  to the Chandni Chowk police station, Delhi against the opposite party. However, after 15 days the police officials of P.S. Chandni Chowk visited the office of the opposite party No. 1 and tried to settle the matter between the complainant and opposite party No. 1 but the opposite party No. 1 flatly refused to change the batteries. Due to this reason, the complainant is not able to operate the vehicle on road and is not in position to pay installment on each and every month. Besides, he is paying parking charges @ Rs. 100/- per day.

2.       The complainant has contended that the opposite parties have failed to provide proper service to the complainant and has caused a great mental pain, agony and harassment. Therefore, the complainant has preferred this complaint before this commission praying for directions to the OPs either to replace the battery or pay the cost of four battery i.e. Rs. 14,000/- together with the interest @ Rs.18% per annum w.e.f. March, 2018 to till its realization. The complainant has also sought complainant of Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental pain and agony and Rs.11,000/- as the cost of litigation expenses.

3.       Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs and in response, the OPs have filed joint reply stating that the complainant has failed to prove that there was deficiency of service on part of the OP-1 and has also stated that  the complaint is frivolous and vexatious and the same is liable to be dismissed. The OPs have contended that the complainant is not covered under the definition of 'consumer' as per the provisions of the act as the complainant has purchased E- Rickshaw for the commercial purpose.

4.       The OPs have also alleged that the complainant is playing cheating and fraud and trying to bring down reputation of OPs by levelling false allegations. The complainant is liable to pay compensation a sum of Rs. 5 Lac as well as liable to be prosecuted under Criminal case u/s 420 IPC and is liable to compensate the OP's for the defamation caused by him otherwise OP's are at liberty to file a case of criminal conspiracy and defamation against the complainant in the competent court of law. It has further been contended by the OPs that the complainant has also not paid an amount of the sale consideration of the E-rickshaw and  has issued 17 PDC cheque to the OP and same are dishonored one by one and the OP has also send legal notice under 138 of NI Act to the Complainant. The complainant has filed the present complaint to take advantage of the legal machinery and divert the OPs in another litigations and he also told to the OPs that " TUM SABKO ETNA PARESAN KAR DUNGA KI PAISE LENA BHOOL JAOGE AUR E- RICKSHAW BHI MERA HOGA".

5.       The complainant has also filed rejoinder and evidence denying averments of the OPs and affirming the allegations levelled in the complaint

6.       The complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments submitted by both the parties and it has been observed that the complainant alleges to have purchased E-rickshaw from opposite party No. 1 on 19/3/2018 for a sum of Rs. 1,06,400/- whereas the Invoice filed as an evidence for this purchase stands issued by M/s. Srishti Automobiles on 03-04-2018.   

 

7.       On going through facts of the case emerging from the complaint, reply of the OPs, Rejoinder of the complainant and evidence filed by both the parties, it has also been concluded that the complainant has actually bought E-Rickshaw after getting it financed from OP-1 who has also initiated action under NI Act against the complainant for not re-paying the loan due to dishonoring of cheque issued by the complainant. It is also relevant to note that neither the complainant nor the OP-1 has filed any loan agreement in this regard. Besides, allegations of the complainant and reply of the OPs also contain issues of dispute of civil/criminal nature which can not be adjudicated by this commission in light of observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Chairman & Managing Director of City Union Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. R. Chandramohan {2023 INSC 300} which stipulates that “the proceedings before the Commission being summary in nature, the complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts or the cases involving tortious acts or criminality like fraud or cheating, could not be decided by the Forum/Commission under the said Act. The “deficiency in service”, as well settled, has to be distinguished from the criminal acts or tortious acts. There could not be any presumption with regard to the wilful fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service, as contemplated in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act.”

 8.      In view of the above observations, the complaint is dismissed being non-maintainable. The complainant is at liberty to avail any other legal remedy as so advised.

9.       Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

10.     Order be given dasti to the parties in accordance with rules. Order be also uploaded on the website. Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

    ASHWANI KUMAR MEHTA                              HARPREET KAUR CHARYA

Member                                                                 Member

                                             DCDRC-1 (North)                                           DCDRC-1 (North)

 

DIVYA JYOTI JAIPURIAR

President       

                                          DCDRC-1 (North)