STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Charanjit Singh S/o Late S. Gulab Singh, resident of #513, Phase 6, Mohali.

 ………Appellant

V E R S U S

1]    Electrotherm India Ltd., Survey No. 72, Palodia, Via Thaltej, Ahmedabad, through its Incharge/ Manager.

2]    Chandigarh Autocare, SCO 482, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh, through its Incharge/ Manager.

              ....Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:   Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellant.

               Sh. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for respondent no.1

               Respondent no.2, already ex-parte.

PER  JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

1.             This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.05.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

2.             The  facts,  in   brief,   are   that         the complainant purchased one “Yo Electron Bike” on 30.3.2009, from Opposite   Party No. 2, and a Certificate with identification no. 000218 (Annexure   C-2), was issued by Opposite   Party No.1. As per the Brochure (Annexure C-1), it was claimed that the said vehicle, would give mileage of 70-75 Kms, per charging. As against it, when it gave an average of only 40-45 Kms, per charging, the complainant approached Opposite   Party No.2, which told that the average would improve after first service, which was done on 29.4.2009. It was stated that the problem of low average continued, due to which, the complainant, being an old man of 65 years, had to face difficulties. It was further stated that, despite carrying out necessary repairs/services on time, the vehicle, failed to give the claimed average and was only giving average of 30-40 Kms on full charging of batteries. He, thus, approached  Opposite Party No.2, on 17.11.2009, which told that the batteries were to be replaced and since warranty period of six months had  lapsed, he had to pay Rs.6,000/-, towards the cost of the batteries. It was further stated that the vehicle, ran less than 1500 Kms, in 09 months, and every month, the same had to be taken to the workshop, for the low average problem. It was further stated that the complainant requested Opposite Party No.2, to take back the vehicle, and refund Rs. 28,000/-, being the cost price of the same, but it flatly refused. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             Opposite Party No.1, in its written reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, regarding purchase of the vehicle, and issuance of Certificate with identification no. 000218 (Annexure C-2), stated that the complainant was very irregular,  in availing services, provided in the owner’s manual. It was further stated that, therefore, on account of irregular services, he was complaining of low mileage. It was further stated that the good performance of the battery operated vehicles,  would depend upon so many parameters like driving habits & road conditions, acceleration & braking, free movement of the vehicle, sudden acceleration & sudden braking, maintenance of correct air pressure, in the tyres, putting the extra load, on the vehicle, charger of the battery etc. etc. It was further stated that, had the batteries been defective, as alleged, the complainant would not have been able to run the vehicle, for all this period. It was further stated that, on receipt of complaint, from the complainant, the battery was checked and it was found perfect and in O.K. condition. It was further stated that, since the warranty terms & conditions, were not adhered to by the complainant, he himself, was responsible and the answering Opposite Party, could not be blamed for that, and, as such, he was not entitled to free replacement of the battery.It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.

4.             OP-2, joined proceedings, but did not file reply and evidence.

5.             The parties, led evidence, in support of its case.

6.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and on, going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above. 

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, as well as the Counsel for respondent no.1, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.

9.      The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the batteries of the vehicle, being defective, it was giving an average of only 40-45 Kms, per charging, whereas, according to the claim of Opposite Party no.1, and on the basis of brochure C-1, it was required to give 70-75 Kms, per charging. He further submitted that even after the replacement of the batteries and on full charging of the same, it (vehicle), did not give mileage of 70-75 kms per charging. He further submitted that earlier, a consumer complaint was filed, and compromise was arrived at, between the parties, as a result whereof, the Opposite Parties replaced the defective batteries, with new one and gave fresh warranty, of three months and, thus, the complaint was dismissed, as withdrawn. He further submitted that, since the vehicle was giving less average, on full charging of the batteries, which was not according to the claim of the Opposite Parties, as well as, brochure C-1, they (Opposite Parties) were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. He further submitted that the District Forum was wrong in dismissing the complaint.

10.           On the other hand, the Counsel for OP-1, submitted that no evidence, of the expert, was produced by the complainant, to prove that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle, or in the batteries. He further submitted that the average of the battery operated vehicles,  would depend upon so many parameters like driving habits & road conditions, acceleration & braking, free movement of the vehicle, sudden acceleration & sudden braking, maintenance of correct air pressure, in the tyres, putting the extra load on the vehicle, charger of the battery etc. etc. He further submitted that, no evidence, was produced by the complainant, regarding the service got done from the authorized centre, by him, as per the owner’s manual. He further submitted that the District Forum, was right, in coming to the conclusion, that there was no deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice.

11.           After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the vehicle, in question, was purchased by the complainant, from Opposite Party No.2.  C-1 brochure, was also issued by the Opposite Parties, according to which maximum speed of the vehicle should be 25 kms, per hour, and it could run 70-75 kms per charging. No record was produced, by the complainant, to establish, as to when he availed of the services of the authorized workshop, in respect of the vehicle, as provided in the owner`s manual. The average of the battery operated vehicles depends on so many parameters, like driving habits & road conditions, acceleration & braking, free movement of the vehicle, sudden acceleration & sudden braking, maintenance of correct air pressure, in the tyres, putting the extra load, on the vehicle, charger of the battery etc. etc. Since, the complainant, did not maintain the service schedule, as per the owner`s manual, it could not be said that it was only on account of  the alleged defect, in the batteries that it (vehicle), gave low average per charging. In case, the batteries of the vehicle were defective, when the same were replaced, after the decision,  in the earlier consumer complaint, it is not known, as to how, the vehicle was being run by the complainant. Had the batteries been defective, it would not have been possible for the complainant, to ply the vehicle. No doubt, the complainant, placed on record, the report Annexure C-8, of one Mr. Devinderpal Singh, who was running a Scooter Repair Workshop, under the name and style of “D.P. Auto”, at SCO No.15, Phase 6, Mohali. He, after testing the vehicle, found that the single run of the same was 23 kms, after full charging of the batteries, in one day. Mr. Devinderpal Singh, Mechanic, aforesaid, could not be said to be an Electrical expert. Only an Electrical Engineer, could properly check the batteries and come to the conclusion, whether there was any defect therein or not. Since, the batteries were not got checked from the Electrical Engineer, the report of Mr. Devinderpal Singh, Mechanic, ­­­­was rightly not relied upon by the District Forum. On the other hand, there is a detailed affidavit of Rajan Chopra, Territory Sales Manager of Opposite Party No.1. It is evident, from this affidavit, that average of the battery operated vehicles and performance of such vehicles,  depend on so many parameters, referred to above. The District Forum, was, thus, right in holding, that there was no document, on record,  placed by the complainant, to prove that the Opposite Parties, were deficient, in rendering service, or indulged into unfair trade practice. The findings of the District Forum, being correct, are affirmed.

12.                  The Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Scooters India Limited through its Marketing Executive, Lucknow Vs. Smt. G.Kanakalakshmi and Another, 2002(1) CPC,  373, a case decided by a Full Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. The facts of the aforesaid case, reveal that the complainant, was assured, at the time of purchase of the vehicle (Auto), that it will run 24 kms in one liter petrol,  but it was found running only 12 kms in one liter petrol. Those allegations, were duly established, by the complainant, by leading evidence, in the complaint. Under these circumstances, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, by ordering the refund of the price of the vehicle, with interest and costs. The State Commission dismissed the appeal and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dismissed the Revision Petition. In the instant case, as stated above, the complainant, miserably failed to prove by leading evidence of an Electrical Engineer that the vehicle was giving low average on full charging of the batteries or on account of defect therein. In the absence of the expert opinion/evidence, having been produced by the complainant, regarding any defect,  in the batteries, the District Forum, was right, in coming to the conclusion that he had failed to prove his case. The facts of the aforesaid case, are completely distinguishable, from the facts of the instant case. No help, therefore, can be sought, by the Counsel for the appellant, therefrom. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.

13.           No other point, was urged by the Counsel for the appellant, as well as, respondent No.1.

14.           The order passed by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.

15.           For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.

16.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

17.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

December 1, 2011

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER