Haryana

Kurukshetra

75/2018

Karan SIngh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Devansh Motor - Opp.Party(s)

Devinder Singh

18 Oct 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                               Complaint Case No.75 of 2018.

Date of instt.: 04.04.2018.

                                                 Date of Decision:18.10.2018.

 

Karan Singh S/o Jai Singh, r/o Village Jrasi Khurad, Tehsil Pehowa & District Kurukshetra.

 

                                                        ……….Complainant.

 

                                Versus

 

M/s. Devaansh Motors, near Second Gate New Anaj Mandi, 100 ft. wide road Kurukshetra, Tehsil Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

 

..………OP.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                       Ms. Neelam, Member.

                       Sh. Sunil Mohan Tirkha, Member.

 

Present :       Sh. Devinder Singh, Adv. for complainant.

                       OP already exparte.

                                         

ORDER

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Karan Singh against M/s. Devaansh Motors, the opposite party.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased the Rickshaw Model City Life XV-850 from the Op agency on 18.10.2017.  It is alleged that at the time of purchase of said rickshaw, the Op told the complainant that the average of Rickshaw on load is 80 K.M. on fully charged batteries but on the road, the above-said Rickshaw was giving average of only 35-40 K.M. There is manufacturing defect in the rickshaw.  It is further alleged that the complainant lodged complaint with the Op agency several times orally as-well-as in written but the OP did not listen the genuine request of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to OP to replace the old rickshaw with the new one and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as cost of litigation charges.   

3.             Upon notice, the OP did not appear and opted to proceed against ex-parte vide order dated 23.05.2018.   

4.             The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, cash memo Ex.C-1, legal notice Ex.C-2, registered cover Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-5 and courier receipt Ex.C-4 and thereafter, closed the evidence.   

5.             We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             There is no rebuttal to the evidence led by the complainant.  Same is also not assailed by OP.  In view of the same, we see the complaint moved by complainant as genuine.  The same is accepted and we direct the OP to replace the old rickshaw with new one on depositing of rickshaw within 30 days failing which a penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party.  File be consigned to record after due compliance.  Copy of this order be communicated to the parties.  

Announced in open court:

Dt.18.10.2018:  

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Tirkha),           (Neelam)       

Member                     Member.