Haryana

Karnal

CC/516/2023

Surinder Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ganga E Motors - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 516 of 2023

                                                        Date of instt.15.09.2023

                                                        Date of Decision:29.05.2024

 

Surinder Sharma son of Shri Rampal, resident of VPO-Katlaheri, District Karnal.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Ganga E Motors, Oppo. Khalsa College, Railway Road, Karnal through its Manager.

                                                                   …..Opposite Party.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Complainant in person.

                    OP exparte (vide order Dated. 25.12.2023)

 

                     (Vineet Kaushik, Member)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that on 06.04.2022, complainant purchased an electric scooty Marka Okaya, Model Freedom electric from OP for a consideration of Rs.68,800/-, with the warranty of three years. After one year of its purchase, the said scooty started problems in motor and battery which is under warranty. Complainant approached the OP for repair of the scooty, the Manager of the OP said that this is not his work and demanded labour charges of the parts which is under warranty, but they did not give any written document regarding denial of repairing of said scooty. The authorized person of the company also misbehaved with the complainant. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OP to take the proper use of warranty for three years and not to take labour charges under warranty parts, to pay compensation of Rs.50000/- due to mental, pain and agony and Rs.11000/- towards the litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP has refused to receive the notice and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 25.10.2023 of the Commission.

3.             Complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of delivery challan Ex.C1, copy of aadhar card Ex.C2, Pen drive Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 13.03.2024 by suffering separate statement.

4.             We have heard the complainant and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

5.             As per version of the complainant, he purchased one electric scooty from the OP with the warranty of three years. After one year of its purchase, scooty started created problem in motor and battery. He approached the OP for repair of the scooty. The official of the OP refused to repair the scooty and demanded the labour charges whereas OP was not entitled to charge the labour charges within warranty period.

6.              The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant. To prove his version, complainant has placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of delivery challan Ex.C1, copy of aadhar card Ex.C2 and Pen drive Ex.C3. To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OP refused to accept the notice of the Commission and proceeded against exparte. Thus, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. In view of the above, it is well proved on record, the scooty in question created problem within warranty period. It was the duty of the OP to repair the scooty free of costs within warranty period but OP demanded the labour charges, which is not justified. Hence, the act of the OP amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

7.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP not to charge the labour charges. We further direct the OP to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 29.05.2024

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                          Member                     Member