Delhi

North East

CC/70/2023

Sh. Tilak Raj - Complainant(s)

Versus

EBox Motors - Opp.Party(s)

07 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No.70/23

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Tilak Raj, S/o Late Mohan Lal, House No. K-759, Gali No. 1, Near Arora Building Material Shop, Gautam Vihar, Garhi Mendu, Delhi 110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	EBOX Motors Authorized Dealer of Pure EV E-359, Ground Floor, Near Nirman Vihar Metro Station, Opposite V3S Mall, Delhi 110092   PUR Energy Pvt. Ltd., H.No. 10-38/2, Survey No. 424/AA3 Beside Arya College of Pharmacy Near IIT Hyderabad, Kandi Village, Sangareddy 502285 Telangana	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                       DATE OF ORDER  :

20.03.2023 03.01.2024 07.03.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 14.01.2022, the Complainant had purchased from the Opposite Party No. 1 one E Pluto 7G scooter bearing no. DL13GD1290 for a sum of Rs. 95,000/-. The said scooter was manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2. The said scooter was covered for one year manufacturer warranty and extended warranty including 60 months of warranty for battery, 36 months warranty for motor and 24 months warranty for controller. Complainant stated that he had duly availed timely service from the service centre of Opposite Party No. 1 but Opposite Party never issued any bill. Complainant stated that the said vehicle was having manufacturing defect and the Complainant had to take the said vehicle several times to service centre as well as showroom. Complainant had to go Dilshad Garden in case of problem in scooter and showroom at Nirman Vihar in case of problem in battery. Complainant stated that the said vehicle was not functioning properly from 31.08.2022 as the said scooter stopped and broke down in the middle of road and despite numerous attempts, vehicle could not be started. Complainant took the said vehicle to the service centre and they removed the battery of the vehicle and kept it with themselves and provided another rotational battery which was also useless because there was no range in the battery and Complainant used the said rotational battery till 01.01.2023. After that the service centre intimated the Complainant about the battery on 02.01.2023 and requested to collect the battery. Complainant alleged after 30 days, the said scooter again broke down on 30.01.2023 and stopped in the middle of the road. Upon that, Complainant approached the Opposite Party No. 1 again on call as well as through messages and registered complaint with regard to problem faced by the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1 informed that there was an issue in battery connector and instructed the Complainant to charge the battery through charger but the battery could not be charged. Complainant stated that Opposite Party No. 1 sent the technician on 14.02.2023 and paid a sum of Rs. 300/- for visiting charges but the issue could not be resolved. Complainant stated that technician told that there was a problem with scooter over call, but after inspecting the scooter he ended up concluding that issue was with battery and Complainant was asked to bring battery at the showroom of Opposite Party No. 1. On 15.02.2023, Complainant took the battery to Opposite Party No. 1 and technician of Opposite Party No. 1 inspected the battery and after few hours asked the Complainant to take back battery and not disclosed the issue of the battery and after heated exchange of words the showroom admitted that there was a problem in BMS of the battery and the same had been rectified. On 19.02.2023 Complainant again availed service from the Opposite Party No. 1 and paid a sum of Rs. 354/- but on the very next day, the said scooter met with same problem and stopped working on the road. Complainant again raised a complaint with Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 1 sent a technician on 21.02.2023 and again technician changed the original battery with rotational battery. Complainant stated that he sent several emails to the Opposite Parties but they did not give any reply and they had not been ready to replace the vehicle of the Complainant and original battery was also lying with the Opposite Party No. 1 which amount to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed for                   Rs. 95,000/- i.e. the cost of the vehicle along with interest @ 12 % p.a.. Complainant also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 21,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party   No. 2 despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party   No. 1 and Opposite Party No. 2 were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.05.2023 and 19.07.2023 respectively.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the material on record and written arguments filed by the Complainant.
5. The case of the Complainant is that on 14.01.2022, the Complainant had  purchased the subject vehicle from the Opposite Party No. 1 which was manufactured by Opposite Party No. 2. The said scooter was covered for one year manufacturer warranty and extended warranty including 60 months of warranty for battery, 36 months warranty for motor and 24 months warranty for controller. Complainant’s allegation is that the said vehicle was not functioning properly from 31.08.2022 as the said scooter stopped and broke down in the middle of road and despite numerous attempts, vehicle could not be started. Complainant had taken the said vehicle to the service centre on several occasions and first, he was informed by Opposite Party No. 1 that issue was with battery connector but later on, it was told there was some battery issue. It is alleged that the Complainant had to leave the battery on several occasions as Opposite Party No. 1 could not solve the battery issue till date and the technician changed the original battery with rotational battery. The Complainant alleges that despite several emails to the Opposite Parties,  they are neither replying nor are they replacing vehicle of the Complainant and original battery was also lying with the Opposite Party No. 1 which amount to deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. The Complainant alleges the manufacturing defect in the vehicle and deficiency in services as he is repeatedly facing the breakdown issues with vehicle and the Opposite Parties have not been able to resolve the issue.
6. In support of his case, the Complainant has produced prints of communications with Opposite Party No. 1 on what’s app chat, purchase invoice, copy of extended warranty policy document, copy of warranty card, copy of service record etc.
7. Perusal of Complainant’s evidence shows that the Complainant had availed extended warranty under which battery was covered for 60 months or 40,000 kms limit whichever is earlier. It is also evident from the record that the Complainant started facing the problem with the vehicle after 8-9 months of the purchase and as per the Complainant’s version, it was majorly related to the battery issue. It is also clear from the record that despite several attempts, Opposite Parties failed to resolve or fix the issue finally. The Complainant has alleged manufacturing defect as well as deficiency in services as the Opposite Parties have failed to resolve the issue.
8. So far as allegation as to the manufacturing defects is concerned, it cannot be considered in view of the fact that the Complainant has used the vehicle for more than 8 months without facing any issue which rules out any inherent defect in the vehicle.
9. It cannot be denied that the Opposite Parties were duty bound to repair the subject vehicle as and when brought to the Opposite Parties and make it functional and roadworthy. If the vehicle is under the warranty period, Opposite Parties are required to replace the defective parts free of costs as in present case and if not covered under the warranty then on chargeable basis.
10.  It is to be noted that Opposite Party No. 2 being the manufacturer of the vehicle is responsible for the acts of Opposite Party No. 1 as Opposite Party No. 1 is their authorized dealer working on their behalf only. Moreover, extended warranty covering the parts of the vehicle and assuring replacement of defective parts was also issued by Opposite Party No. 2 only. Since the Opposite Parties have not contested the case, we have to believe the uncontroverted version of the Complainant and as per his version original battery is also lying with Opposite Party No. 1.
11. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that Opposite Party No. 2 being the manufacturer of the vehicle is liable towards the Complainant for providing deficient services to Complainant by not making vehicle of Complainant roadworthy. As Complainant has failed to prove manufacturing defects in the vehicle, Complainant is not entitled to get replacement of vehicle or refund of amount of vehicle as claimed by the Complainant.
12. Thus the complaint is partly allowed and Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. PURE Energy Pvt. Ltd.,being manufacturer, is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs. 45,000/- as compensation for inconvenience, misery and mental agony faced by the Complainant and Rs. 7,000/ for litigation cost along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till its recovery.
13. Order announced on 07.03.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)