BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FEROZEPUR.
C.C. No. 164 of 2015 Date of Institution: 16.4.2015
Date of Decision: 24.9.2015
Amit Kumar, Aged 31 years, Son of Kuldip Kumar, Resident of Village Khanpur, Tehsil and District Fazilka, Ph. No.94647-74530.
....... Complainant
Versus
- Electrotherm(I) Limited, Regd. Office: 72, Palodia (Via Thaltej), Ahmedabad-382115, Gujarat (India) through its Authorized Signatory.
- Shubham Motors, Opposite Radha Swami Colony, Abohar Road, Fazilka, through its Authorized Signatory.
........ Opposite party
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
* * * * * *
C.C. No.164 of 2015 \\2//
PRESENT :
For the complainant : Sh. Hardeep Bajaj, Advocate.
For opposite party No.1 : Sh. Sham Kumar, Authorized Person
For opposite party No.2 : Sh. Amit Kumar Chabra,
QUORUM
S. Gurpartap Singh Brar, President
Mrs. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
ORDER
GURPARTAP SINGH BRAR, PRESIDENT:-
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased a vehicle/bike model YO EXL, Colour White bearing Chasis No. MBTXL010DDK004877, Engine/Motor No.481100013010103, bearing Key No.8741, battery No.19505/B1m 19506/B2, 19507/B3 and 19508/B4 for his personal use from opposite party No.2 for a consideration of Rs.50,500/- which was manufactured by opposite party No.1. The vehicle in question could be run on the power of batteries only as the vehicle is not fuel bike. At the time of purchase,
C.C. No.164 of 2015 \\3//
one year warranty was given on the vehicle by the opposite parties. After the purchase of vehicle, the batteries were not working properly and the vehicle was unable to play on the road. The complainant approached the opposite parties and informed the opposite parties about the fact that the batteries in question were not working properly. Batteries in question have remained failed to give performance in mileage and complainant had to suffer many a times as the vehicle in question stopped in the way due to early discharge of the batteries. The complainant brought the vehicle many a times to opposite party No.2 for replacement of the batteries in question, but to no effect. On dated 21.3.2014, within the warranty period, opposite party No.2 tested the batteries and kept the same with it on the saying that said batteries will be sent to opposite party No.1 and new batteries will be provided within twenty days. Since then the complainant has been approaching opposite party No.2 for batteries, but opposite party No.2 has been lingering on the matter on the pretext that the removed batteries have been sent to opposite party No.1 and new batteries have not been received yet from opposite party No.1. The complainant also contacted opposite party No.1 telephonically, but no satisfactory answer was received. The vehicle in question is lying as a scrap without batteries. The batteries of vehicle in question were defectives. Pleading deficiency in service
C.C. No.164 of 2015 \\4//
on the part of the opposite party, the complainant has prayed that the opposite party be directed to refund the price of the vehicle in question i.e. Rs.50,500/-, which is lying as scrap without batteries, alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase of the vehicle in question i.e. 5.6.2013 till realization, and to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation for financial loss, harassment, mental pain and to pay Rs.5000/- as costs.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed their separate written reply to the complaint, In its written reply, the opposite party No.1 admitted that the complainant had purchased the vehicle on 5.6.2013. At the time of purchase of the vehicle, the complainant was explained with regard to terms and conditions of the warranty. The complainant is insisting for replacement of the vehicle which is not possible as per the terms and conditions of the policy, in the manual it is clearly mentioned that “this warranty is given only for the parts and not for the whole vehicle”. It is necessary for the complainant to maintain the vehicle as stated in the manual which is not followed by the complainant and opposite party No.1 cannot be held responsible for any problem created because of the fault of the complainant. At the time of purchase, the complainant was informed by the opposite party that utmost care and caution is required to be taken
C.C. No.164 of 2015 \\5//
while driving the battery operated vehicle. The complainant had not come up before this Forum with clean hands. The complainant has not brought the vehicle to opposite party No.2 for battery problem before 21.3.2014. In fact, the complainant has never complained about the battery problem till 21.3.2014. The complainant has complained about the battery problem in the vehicle on 21.3.2014 and at that time the total running of the vehicle was 9718 kilometers which was half of the battery life. The complainant was negligent in maintaining the vehicle and has not even followed the proper service schedule. So, the complainant is not eligible to avail any benefit of his own wrong. As per the warranty terms and conditions, the complainant has to undertake free and paid services regularly. The complainant has not availed the services at proper time and interval. Further it has been pleaded that the batteries were sent for checkup and opposite party No.2 has given new batteries as a standby to the complainant on 2.4.2014 i.e. within 11 days of the complaint, so that the complainant does not face any problem. The complainant has used the standby batteries given by opposite party No.2 for 13 months and 10 days and vehicle was used for 7735 kilometers using standby batteries. This fact was not narrated by the complainant in the present complaint and has suppressed this fact from the Forum. The complainant has not given any
C.C. No.164 of 2015 \\6//
written complaint to opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 as a goodwill gesture and customer oriented approach, dispatched new batteries for the complainant on 30.4.2015 and the same are lying with opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 approached the complainant several times to take the new batteries, but the complainant is not ready to accept the same. The complainant after using the vehicle for more than 17,000 kilometers, now asking for the refund of amount, which clearly demonstrates the intention of the complainant. Other allegations of the complaint have been denied and dismissal of the complaint has been prayed for.
3. Opposite party No.2 has filed its written reply on the line written reply filed by opposite party No.1.
4. Ld. Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-7 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OP-1/1, documents Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/4 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex. OP-2/1 and closed evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.
C.C. No.164 of 2015 \\7//
5. We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have also gone through the file.
6. The purchase of the vehicle/bike is admitted by the parties. It is also admitted by the opposite parties that vehicle was within warranty period. The grievances of the complainant is that the vehicle in question could be run on the power of batteries only as the vehicle is not fuel bike. At the time of purchase, one year warranty was given on the vehicle by the opposite parties. But after the purchase of vehicle, the batteries were not working properly and the vehicle was unable to play on the road. The complainant approached the opposite parties and informed the opposite parties about the fact that the batteries in question were not working properly. Batteries in question have remained failed to give performance in mileage and complainant had to suffer many a times as the vehicle in question stopped in the way due to early discharge of the batteries. The complainant brought the vehicle many a times to opposite party No.2 for replacement of the batteries in question, but to no effect. On dated 21.3.2014, within the warranty period, opposite party No.2 tested the batteries and kept the same with it on the saying that said batteries will be sent to opposite party No.1 and new batteries will be provided within twenty days. But till today, opposite party No.2 has not handed over the
C.C. No.164 of 2015 \\8//
new batteries to the complainant. The vehicle in question is lying as a scrap without batteries. The total price spent on the vehicle in question has gone wasted for the complainant. The complainant has not placed on record any evidence to prove that the vehicle of the complainant is lying as scrap. The version of the opposite parties is that the complainant was insisting for replacement of the vehicle which is not possible as per the terms and conditions of the policy. In the manual it is clearly mentioned that “this warranty is given only for the parts and not for the whole vehicle”. Opposite party No.1 has placed on file copy of warranty policy is Ex.OP-1/4 to prove his version. Sh. Amit Kumar Chabra, i.e. opposite party No.2 has suffered the statement before this Forum on 10.7.2015 in which opposite party No.2 stated that he is ready to replace the set of batteries of the vehicle in question. Similarly, the representative of the opposite party No.1 has suffered the statement before this Forum on 24.9.2015 in which he stated that he is ready to replace the set of batteries of the vehicle in question. Opposite party No.2 pleaded in the written reply in the para No. 3.8 that opposite party No.1 as a goodwill gesture and customer oriented approach, dispatched new batteries for the complainant on 30.4.2015 and the same are lying with opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 approached several times to the complainant to take the replaced batteries, but the
C.C. No.164 of 2015 \\9//
complainant is not ready to accept the same. The version of the opposite parties are not denied by the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint on 16.4.2015 and the opposite party No.1 dispatched the new batteries for the complainant on 30.4.2015 after the filing this complaint. The complainant is harassed by the opposite parties. So, the complainant is entitled for suitable compensation.
7. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is accepted and the opposite parties are directed to replace the batteries of the vehicle/byke with new one. Further opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.1000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order is directed to be complied with by the opposite parties within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced (Gurpartap Singh Brar)
24.9.2015 President
(Inderjeet Kaur) Member
