Delhi

East Delhi

CC/311/2016

JEEWAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

CITY CARS - Opp.Party(s)

20 Nov 2017

ORDER

             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                                        Consumer complaint no.    311/2016                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution            13/06/2016

                                                                                                        Order reserved on            20/11/2017

                                                                                                        Date of Order                    21/11/2017               

In matter of

Mr Jeevan, adult

S/o  Late- Sh Khali Ram     

R/o – D3/A, West Vinod Nagar  

Delhi  110092……..………………………..……………….Complainant                                                                  

                                                                            

                                                                       Vs

M/s City Cars  

B-13/A, Chander Vihar,

I P Extn., Patpargunj, Delhi 110092………………….Opponent

 

 

Quorum                                                    Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                                   Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                                                                   Smt Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                                      

                    

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief  Facts of the case                                                                                                    

 

Complainant had purchased 4 E Rickshaw batteries from OP/ City Cars for a sum of Rs 13000/- on 18/08/2015 marked vide bill no. 104 (Ex CW1/1). Standard warranty for six month was given from the date of purchase (Ex CW1/1A to G). Complainant approached OP on 31/01/2014 for replacement of all four batteries as one battery was not giving current properly, but only one battery was replaced. When complainant asked to replace all the four batteries, OP misbehaved and did not replace rest of other three batteries. Seeing deficient services of OP in violation of terms and conditions of warranty of batteries sent a legal notice (Ex CW1/2) for compensation of batteries and loss of business. When complainant did not get any reply, filed this complaint claiming refund of all four batteries with compensation of Rs one lakh with interim relief of Rs 50,000/- and litigation charges Rs 25,000/-

OP filed written statement denying all allegations as wrong and incorrect. It was admitted that complainant had purchased four battery set for his E Rickshaw which was to be used as commercial use and was not for his livelihood. It was stated that OP did not do any unfair trade practice with their customers. OP was retailer of the batteries and complainant had not made necessary parties as Narsons Enterprises as authorised service centre and M/s General Motors Technical Centre india Pvt Ltd as manufacturer of AC Delco batteries, so non join of necessary parties for any relief from defects, complainant had approached without any cause of action, so it may be dismissed. It was also stated that a seller could not remove the defects if at all occurred in the battery or replace the batteries. More so, there were four batteries and one battery had some defect so it was replaced by the authorised service centre/Narson Enterprises on 31/01/2016 under warranty tenure. So alleged allegations were wrong and totally false and the complaint may be dismissed. 

 

Complainant filed his rejoinder and evidence on affidavit and reaffirmed himself on oath that all the contents and evidence were true and correct.  

OP also filed evidence on affidavit through Mr Hemant Kumar as proprietor of OP and reaffirmed on oath that fact and replies submitted by OP were correct and true. It was stated that there was some problem in one battery type LME-1000 and serial no. 1150630016823 was replaced on 31/01/2016 and rest batteries were working well.

 

Arguments were heard from both the parties and after perusal of file, order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidence on record and it was seen that complainant had purchased four E Rickshaw batteries. His main grievance was for replacing all the four batteries when one of the battery had some problem which was timely replaced by the service centre.

Complainant has neither impleaded authorised service centre as Narsons Enterprises nor the manufacturer of the batteries for any relief from the manufacture as necessary parties. Even though the service centre had replaced the battery under warranty tenure, so there was no deficiency in the service of OP.

 

So, there is no merit in this complaint and deserve to be dismissed, so dismissed without cost.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per the Regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under 20(1) of the CPR.  

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                             Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member    

                                                                              

                                                    Shri Sukhdev Singh - President