| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No. 96/2019 Sh. Jainul Haq S/o Sh. Mustkim R/o 65/7, Chaterpur Extension, New Delhi- 110070 ….Complainant Versus M/s ECO Wheels Proprietor Akram Office at Kh. No. 323, Eidgah Road, Near Chaterpur Mandir, Chaterpur, New Delhi ….Opposite Party Date of Institution : 09.04.2019 Date of Order : 12.09.2022 Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal - Briefly put, it is stated that the complainant purchased an E-rickshaw from M/s ECO Wheels (OP) for Rs.1,30,000/-on 02.01.2019. Complainant purchased the E-rickshaw to earn his livelihood but after few days of purchasing the said E-rickshaw, it broke down. The complainant was informed by the mechanic that the E-rickshaw had certain defects for which the complainant spent approximately Rs 30,000/-on repairs. Complainant contacted OP regarding the defects but did not receive any positive response. It is next stated that the complainant contacted OP for registration of the said E-rickshaw in the last week of January, 2019 but OP failed to do the needful.
- It is further stated that complainant on 06.04.2019 went to the Chatarpur Metro Station with his E-rickshaw where he was challaned by the Traffic Police as the complainant could not produce the documents of E-rickshaw. The said E-rickshaw was then seized by the Traffic Police. The complainant on 07.04.2019 went to the Court to get the vehicle by paying fine for traffic challan but the Court refused to release the E-rickshaw stating that the complainant does not possess the relevant documents of the E-rickshaw. Complainant informed the said developments to OP but OP paid no heed to the request of the complainant and did not provide the requisite documents to ply the
E-rickshaw on road.
- Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on behalf of OP, Complainant approached this Commission with prayer for directions to OP to pay Rs.1,30,000/- alongwith interest and Rs.40,000/- towards compensation on account of mental , physical pain, agony and harassment.
- OP resisted the complaint and filed the written statement raising preliminary objection that the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is stated that the E-rickshaw in question was used for commercial purpose for generating revenue and profit. OP states that the said E-rickshaw was driven by a driver and not by the complainant himself.
- It is next stated that the complainant on 02.01.2019 purchased a brand new E-rickshaw from for total sum of Rs.1,32,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.1,30,000/- cash on the assurance that the balance payment of Rs.2,000/- would be paid within a month from the date of purchase of the vehicle. It is next stated that the complainant had properly checked and got trial of the said vehicle before purchasing/making payment of the said vehicle to ensure that the vehicle is new and in good condition without any defects. It is further stated that at the time of purchase OP informed the complainant that he will have to submit certain documents to get clearance from the concerned Authority. It is further stated that OP provided all the services of the said vehicle within warranty period free of cost.
- It is stated that the complainant was requested to make the balance payment of Rs.2,000/- and was requested to submit the requisite documents to get the clearance from the Concerned Authority but the complainant paid no heed to it rather the complainant continued to run the said vehicle. A driver named Sonu drove the vehicle illegally without obtaining the requisite certificate. It is next stated that as the E-rickshaw was seized by the Traffic Police, complainant held OP responsible for the said seizure thereby demanding back the money paid to the OP for the E-rickshaw. In view of the fact that complainant took trial of the E-rickshaw before purchasing and did not provide the documents asked by OP , it is the complainant who is harassing the OP by making illegitimate demand and filing false and frivolous complaint. Accordingly, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
- Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments are filed on behalf of parties.
- Complainant in support his case has annexed photographs of the E-rickshaw and an invoice of E-rickshaw dated 29.12.2019, which is in the name of Sh. Bablu, complaint written to the Police Station, Mehrauli on 01.03.2019 and challan-cum-receipt by the Traffic Police. OP in its written statement has admitted that the complainant on 02.01.2019 purchased a brand new E-rickshaw for a total sum of Rs.1,32,000/- and paid Rs.1,30,000/- in cash. Balance payment of Rs.2,000/- remained with an assurance to pay the same within a month from the date of purchase of the said vehicle. OP’s admittance that only Rs.2,000/- remained towards the balance payment of the
E-rickshaw makes us conclude that the complainant Sh. Janul Haq purchased the E-rickshaw on 02.01.2019 by making payment of Rs.1,30,000/- in cash. It is settled that facts once admitted need not be proved.
- OP’s objection that the E-rickshaw was run for the commercial purpose or to make profits has not been substantiated by any evidence. Merely stating the fact that one driver was driving the
E-rickshaw does not establish the fact that the said vehicle was being run for commercial purpose. Hence, this objection of OP is rejected.
- The next contention of OP that the complainant while receiving the E-rickshaw was informed to submit certain documents to get the clearance from the concerned Authority and the complainant did not provide the same does not seem plausible. As any prudent man after purchasing a new vehicle would ply the vehicle on road legally after having the requisite documents, knowing very well that in case the vehicle is driven without the documents, illegally he would be challaned.
- This Commission holds OP to be deficient in service and to be indulging an unfair trade practice by not providing the registration/ requisite documents of the vehicle to the complainant after having received Rs1,30,000/-.We are of considered view that possession of
E-rickshaw with the complainant is of no use without the legal papers to ply the same.
- In view of the discussion above, OP is directed to refund Rs.1,30,000/- @6% interest per annum within three months from the date of order failing which OP shall pay Rs.1,30,000/- @9% till realization. Additionally, OP is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental harassment, agony and cost of litigation. OP shall be entitled to retain possession and ownership of the E-rickshaw after making the above stated payment to the complainant.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website. | |
