Haryana

Ambala

CC/94/2022

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chahal Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

D.N. Pali

10 Apr 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case No.:   94 of 2022.

                                                          Date of Institution         :   21.03.2022.

                                                          Date of decision   :   10.04.2024.

 

Rajinder Kumar aged about 51 years son of Shri Fakir Chand, R/o House No.2059, Moti Nagar, Ambala City (Mb. No.99915-06387).

……. Complainant.

                                                Versus

 

1. Chahal Enterprises, Shop No.12, Vita Enclave, Ambala City, through its Proprietor Shri Manoj Chahal (Mb.Nos.75890-44444 & 92153-00990).
2. Super Mexx Energies Private Limited, Work-44, Sector-2, HSIIDC, Industrial Area, IGC, Saha, District Ambala-133104, through its Authorized Signatory.

     ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

         Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri D.N.Pali, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                   Shri Narender Sharma Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

 

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  Complainant has filed this complaint under Sections 34 and 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To either replace the defective Super Mexx E-Rickshaw Battery in question with a new one or to pay Rs.75,000/-, being within the complete warranty period to the complainant being owner of the Battery alongwith interest @ 18% per annum, at the time of selling the defective battery in question from the date of sale i.e from 28.08.2020, till the date of entire payment to the complainant.
2. To pay Rs.2,00,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.22,000/-, as litigation expenses.
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant had to purchase E-Richshaw Battery and for this purpose on 28.08.2020, he approached the OP No.1 through its proprietor Shri Manoj Chahal who disclosed to the complainant to be an authorized distributor/dealer of Super Mexx E-Ricksaw Battery and he disclosed to him that E-Rickshaw Battery is having complete warranty of 2-1 years. The OP also specified this fact of warranty that in case of any manufacturing defect is detected within two years i.e 24 months from the date of purchase of this Battery, the OP No.1 get the same replaced by new one without any objection or interruption and if any defect is appeared within 25^th month, then the OP No.1 will get the Battery repaired of its own and the OP No.1 also disclosed to the complainant that the OP no.2 i.e Super Mexx Energies Private Limited is Manufacturing unit of this E-Rickshaw Battery. OP No.1 further disclosed to the complainant that this Battery will charge fastly and it will run for 100 kilometre on its complete charging, thus on the inducement and persistent assurance of the complainant regarding this E-Rickshaw Battery, the complainant purchased this Super Mexx E-Rickshaw Battery from the OP No.1 for a total sum of Rs.75,000/- on 28.08.2020 i.e Rs.70,000/-, as cost of this Battery + Rs.500/- on account of installation charges. Since the purchase of the Battery, the complainant started using the said Battery in his E-Rickshaw vehicle and the said Battery worked properly till September, 2021 and in the last week of October, 2021 after charging full battery, the charging of the battery starting ending after running E-Rickshaw hardly about 60 Kilometers. When it became routine of the battery, then the complainant apprised about this as complaint to the OP No.1 upon which, the OP No.1 disclosed to the complainant that the complainant would have to handover the battery for 15 days and the OP No.1 then will clear the position and thus the complainant gave the battery to the OP No.1 and after keeping the battery for 15 days, the OP No.1 frankly disclosed to the complainant that the battery has no any problem and it is alright and the complainant can take in use this battery now. Accordingly, the complainant started using this Battery thereafter and he used the Battery for two months. Since it has great problem in ending the charges after going 60 kilometres then the complainant again complained to the OP No.1 and the OP no.1 induced the complainant to approach to the OP No.2, which is manufacturing unit of this Battery and accordingly the complainant approached the OP No.2 and after hearing the complaint of the complainant regarding running of E-Rickshaw hardly 60 kilometres after complete charging of the aforesaid Battery against 100 kilometres running as disclosed by the OP No.1, who is an Authorized Distributors/Dealer, then the OP No.2 kept the Battery of the complainant for 3 days and the OP No.2 disclosed to the complainant that he can take back the battery after 3 days and then he will make it well in order after thoroughly verifying it. Accordingly, the complainant after three days went to the OP No.2 for taking back his aforesaid battery; then the OP No.2 frankly disclosed to the complainant that unfortunately the Battery in question has manufacturing defects and it cannot be rectified and the OP No.2 induced the complainant to keep in use it and then the complainant took back his aforesaid battery in question and started keeping in use in his E-Rickshaw. Complainant repeatedly requested the OPs to replace the defective battery in question by new one as it is within the complete warranty period and as per promise and assurance, OP No.1 is legally bound to either replace the same by new one or return the cost of the battery, but the OPs paid no heed, rather the OP No.1 started threatening the complainant to report the matter to the police, if he dares to pressurize him to replace the battery in question by new one and thus they OP and complainant also contacted the OP No.2 for getting the same replaced, but the OP No.2 also paid no heed. Complainant also served a legal notice upon the OPs, but of no avail. Complainant left with no other alternative except to file the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands, cause of action and time barred etc. On merits, it is stated that as per warranty of the company the period is 12 months from the date of purchase and the present complaint is time barred as the complaint has been filed after the expiry of 12 months. The complainant purchased the battery for running e-Rickshaw i.e for commercial purpose thus complainant is not the consumer. The complainant had not purchased the battery from OP No.1.Rest of the allegations levelled by the complainant were denied for lack of knowledge and prayer has been made for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.                Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 & C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Shri Manoj Chahal Proprietor of Chahal Enterprises Shop No.12, Vita Enclave, Ambala City as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.

5.                The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by selling the defective e-rickshaw battery in question, having manufacturing defects therein and on the other hand by neither rectifying the defects therein nor replacing the same with a new one nor refunding the price thereof, the OPs are deficient in providing service.  He prayed that complaint may be accepted.  

6.                 On the contrary, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that complainant is not a consumer as the complainant had not purchased the battery in question from the OP No.1. As per warranty of the company the period of warranty is 12 months from the date of purchase and the present complaint is time barred as the complaint has been filed after the expiry of 12 months and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

7.         The objection taken by the OPs that the complainant did not fall under the definition of consumer, as the complainant had not purchased the battery from the OP No.1 and as per condition of warranty the third party shall not entitled for any claim. The complainant purchased the battery for running e-Richkshaw i.e. for commercial purpose. On our asking, the complainant has miserably failed to placed on record any invoice/bill regarding purchase of battery in question from the OPs. Thus, the objections taken by the OPs have rightly been sustained.
8. From the above discussion, it may be stated here onus is on the complainant to prove that he had purchased the battery in question from the OP No.1 but  he miserably failed to place on record any invoice/bill regarding purchase of the battery in question from the OP No.1. In this way, complainant has failed to prove his case. Thus we are of the view that there is no substance in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 08.04.2024.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)           (Ruby Sharma)              (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                         President