Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/116/2020

RAVi INder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd and anothers - Opp.Party(s)

Salil Sabhlok

12 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	116 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	17.02.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	12.11.2024

 

 

 

 

Ravi Inder Singh s/o Lt.Col.Krishn Dev Singh, r/o House No.1002, Sector 27-B, Chandigarh.

             … … … Complainant

 

Versus

1.  Decathlon Sports India Private Limited having its Head Office at Survey No.78/10, A2 – 0 Chikkajala Village, Bellary Road, Bangalore-562157, Karnataka

2. Decathlon Sports India Private Limited having its store at Khasra number 670,671,678,679, Village Singhpura, Hadbast Number 43, Chandigarh-Ambala Highway, Zirakpur, Punjab 140603.

   … … … Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA,     MEMBER

                               

Argued by:    Sh.Amrinder Singh, Counsel for Complainant.

Sh.G.S.Sullar, Counsel for Opposite Parties(OPs).

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant purchased a cycle from OPs on 22.08.2019 for an amount of Rs.13,395/-. It is stated that within a few weeks from the purchase of the cycle, the complainant had two accidents with motorists during the evening hours and both times the motorists mentioned that they could not see the complainant in spite of the lights of their vehicles being on. The complainant did not suffer any major injuries and escaped with minor cuts. It is stated that in spite of the said cycle having ten reflectors, including four on the spoke of the vehicle, one each in front & rear and four on the pedals, the motorists could not see the complainant while cycling, the complainant decided to get the reflectors on the cycle checked by the relevant authority. Accordingly, he sent the reflectors on the cycle for testing to the ‘International Centre for Automotive Technology (ICAT)’. Upon testing, ICAT issued a report dated 21.01.2020 wherein it was clear that the requirements under the said ISO Standard has not been met. It is stated that OPs have been selling cycles in the market with sub standard reflectors which do not pass the tests of ISO Standards, also in violation of ISO Standards, which is hazardous to the cyclists on roads. In fact, by installing defective/sub-standard reflectors, the cycles being sold by OPs are hit by manufacturing defects. Alleging the aforesaid act of OPs deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed with a prayer to refund the total cost of the cycle i.e. Rs.13,395/- along with interest, damages for inconvenience, compensation for mental agony & harassment and litigation expenses. 

 

2]       The OPs in their written version have stated that complainant has failed to produce any medical record, medico-legal report or other reports/documents to substantiate the occurrence of the two accidents alleged suffered by the complainant while using the cycle purchased from the OPs. It is stated that complainant has also failed to produce any affidavit, representation or communication from either of the two purported motorists to substantiate the complainant’s averment that they could not see the complainant in spite of the lights of their vehicle being on.

    It is stated that report of the International Centre for Automotive Technology (ICAT) dated 21.01.2020 relied upon in the complaint is vague, unclear and is prima facie unconnected with the allegations made in the complaint because there is nothing in the report to suggest that the individual units of conventional reflector tested therein are the same reflectors which were affixed to the Cycle sold to the complainant vide Invoice dated 22.08.2019. It is further stated that complainant has only submitted the individual reflectors on the cycle sold by the OPs and not the cycle itself to ICAT, therefore, the complainant has tempered with the allegedly defective cycle by removing the allegedly defective individual components/parts thereof. The complainant has failed to adopt prescribed procedure in case of goods that require analysis or testing. It is denied that OPs have been selling cycles in the market with reflectors which are in violation of ISO Standards. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice as well as all other allegations, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OPs as made in their written version.

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contention.

5]       We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through entire documents on record.

 

6]       The fact relating to purchase of cycle against an amount of Rs.13,395/- is not disputed. The grouse of the complainant is that the reflectors fitted with the cycle in question are of substandard quality, in violation of ISO Standards, as he had two accidents with motorists during the evening hours for the reason that the motorists could not see the complainant while cycling in spite of the cycle having ten reflectors.

 

7]       In support of his case, complainant has placed on record copy of the report dated 21.01.2020 issued by International Centre for Automotive Technology(ICAT), A Division of NATRIP Implementation Society (NATIS), Govt. of India, from where the complainant got the reflectors tested and upon testing, it was clear that the requirements under the ISO Standards have not been met.

8]      A perusal of letter dated 17.02.2016 Annexure C-5 indicates that the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety has mandated that the bicycle be fitted with ISO:6742-2 Reflectors on different parts of superior quality and conspicuous during night which would be more useful in reducing road accidents of bicycle users.

9]       The reflectors are installed and made to be installed by the authorities for the safety of the cyclists so that during the evening/early morning/fog etc. when there is not enough sunlight, the cyclists can be identified by other vehicles with their headlights, reflection because of street lights etc. The reflectors reflect the light so as to enable the drivers of other vehicles to identify the cyclists. The reflectors are designed to enhance the visibility of cyclists on the road, reducing the risk of accidents, especially during low-light conditions.

10]      The OPs have supplied a cycle with substandard reflectors/components/parts to the complainant and as such, remained defaulter by not redressing grievance of the complainant by either replacing the cycle or by refunding the price of it to the complainant. In fact, by selling the cycle installed with substandard reflectors, the OPs have adopted unfair trade practice. Thus, OPs in order to cut short the price of the product used substandard reflectors which amounts to adoption of unfair trade practice by OPs for which OPs are liable to compensate the complainant/consumer.

11]      Taking into consideration the above facts & circumstances of the case, it is held that the OPs have sold a cycle with substandard reflectors to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the complainant stands partly allowed and OPs are directed to refund the entire invoice price of the cycle in question i.e. Rs.13,395/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its purchase i.e. 22.08.2019 till its realization and also pay lumpsum compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, subject to return of cycle by the complainant under its proper receipt issued by OPs.

12]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

 

        The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules 2020 & Act 2019 respectively. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12.11.2024                                                               

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA)

MEMBER

as