BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 222 of 2024
Date of Institution: 22.4.2024
Date of Decision:9.10.2024
Avtar Singh age years son of S. Harpal Singh resident of Village Anaitpura Tehsil Ajnala District Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
Fateh Automobile through its Prop. S. Avtar Singh carrying on business Amritsar Road, Ajnala Amritsar (Punjab) Mobile No. 9888459565
Opposite Party
Complaint under section 35 & 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Result : Complaint Partly Allowed Ex-parte
Counsel for the parties :
For the Complainant : Sh. Rajesh Bhandari,Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Ex-parte
CORAM
Mr.Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President
Ms.Mandeep Kaur, Member
ORDER:-
Ms.Mandeep Kaur, Member :-Order of this commission will dispose of the present complaint filed by the complainants u/s 35 & 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Brief facts and pleadings
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant has purchased one electric scooter vide Invoice No. 209 dated 1.8.2023 bearing chassis No. 250|W0931 Motor No. 531 from the opposite party. At the time of sale of said scooter, opposite party assured the complainant that scooter is having warranty of one year . The complainant started using electric scooter and immediately after the purchase of the said electric scooter, it was found that the electric scooter was not working properly as its electric battery is manufacturing defect and due to this reason battery back up is not there upto mark as assured by the opposite party. The scooter is only give mileage of 12 KM to 15 KM when it was fully charged. Then the complainant approached the opposite party and told about the problem in electric scooter which the opposite party flatly refused to resolve the grievance of the complainant inspite of numerous visits to the opposite party. It was told to the complainant by the opposite party that the battery of the scooter is not working properly and it will b e changed and the complainant has to make payment of Rs. 15000/- more inspite of warranty is still covered . It is pertinent to mention over here that battery are also under the warranty of one year as it is clearly mentioned in the invoice. The opposite party has charged Rs. 58700/- as value of electric scooter at the time of purchase of electric scooter but they have issued invoice to the tune of Rs. 57,700/-. The opposite party h as over charged the complainant arbitrarily. The complainant so many times visited the opposite party but the opposite party instead of resolving the grievance of the complainant has flatly refused to replace the electric scooter and to refund Rs. 1000/- which has been over charged by the complainant. Occurring of defect in the electric scooter time and again shows deficiency on the part of the opposite as well as unfair trade practice which has caused lot of mental agony, harassment, inconvenience besides financial loss to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite party be directed to return Rs. 58700/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of purchase till its realization ;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
(c ) Opposite party be also directed to Rs. 22,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
(d) Any other relief to which the complainant is entitled be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite party , but when none made appearance on behalf of opposite party despite service of notice, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 16.5.2024.
Evidence of the complainant and Arguments
3. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit , copy of invoice Ex.C-1, bank statement of account Ex.C-2.
4. We have heard the Ld.counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file. Ld.counsel for the complainant stated at bar that he does not want to file written arguments and the contents of the complaint alongwith exhibited documents be read as part of written arguments.
Findings
5. From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record the case of the complainant is that he has purchased one electric scooter vide Invoice No. 209 dated 1.8.2023 bearing chassis No. 250W0931 Motor No. 531 from the opposite party having warranty of one year . It is the case of the complainant that soon after purchase of the electric connection it was not working properly as battery back up is not upto mark as assured by the opposite party and it only gives mileage of 12 KM to 15 KM when it was fully charged. Then the complainant approached the opposite party and they told the complainant that the battery of the scooter is not working properly and it will be changed and the complainant has to make payment of Rs. 15000/- more inspite of warranty is still covered . It is further the case of the complainant that the opposite party has charged Rs. 58700/- as value of electric scooter at the time of purchase of electric scooter but they have issued invoice to the tune of Rs. 57,700/- and as such has over charged the complainant arbitrarily. In order to prove his case the complainant has filed his affidavit, copy of invoice showing the price of vehicle Rs. 57,700/- Ex.C-1, copy of bank statement Ex.C-2 vide which Rs. 58,700/- has been credited to the opposite party. On the other hand opposite party did not opt to put in appearance despite service and made them ex-parte, as such the averments as well as evidence produced on record remained unrebutted and rather impliedly admitted by the opposite party.
6. This Commission has given thoughtful consideration to the facts of the present case and the moot questions involved are whether the opposite party has charged excess amount than the invoice price. Perusal of invoice Ex.C-2 shows that the price of the electric scooter was mentioned as Rs. 57,700/-, whereas the opposite party has charged Rs. 58,700/- which fully proves from the statement of account Ex.C-3 . The opposite party by not making appearance failed to justify the charging of Rs. 58,700/- instead of the invoice price of Rs. 57,700/-, as such it stands proved that the opposite party has over charged Rs. 1000/- from the complainant which the opposite party is liable to refund to the complainant.
7. As the complainant has purchased the electric scooter on 1.8.2023 having one year warranty and by not appearing before this Commission the opposite party failed to rebut the averments of the complainant that the electric scooter was not working properly and for replacement of the battery the opposite party demanded Rs. 15000/- from the complainant . However, vide instant complaint the complainant has sought refund of the entire sale price of Rs. 58,700/- but this Commission while going through the record came to the conclusion that though the opposite party made them ex-parte but the complainant has also not placed on record any evidence vide which he has approached the opposite party for redressal of his grievance , yet believing upon the version of the complainant that the opposite party has demanded Rs. 15000/- for replacement of the battery as the opposite party did not come present to rebut the averments of the complainant, as such this Commission deem it fit to give direction to the opposite party to replace the battery of the electric scooter of the complainant with new one free of cost .
8. In view of the above discussion, we partly allow the complaint ex-parte and the opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 1000/- as excessively charged from the complainant and is further directed to replace the battery of electric scooter of the complainant with new one of same make and model free of costs and make the electric scooter in functional order to the satisfaction of the complainant. So far as compensation is concerned by not redressing the grievance of the complainant despite the electric scooter is within the warranty period and compelled the complainant to indulge in unwanted litigation, as such the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/- to the complainant. Compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this commission.
