Delhi

North East

CC/96/2019

Sh. Dinesh Kumar Kesharwani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Garg Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.96/19

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Dinesh Kumar Kesharwani, Proprietor of Kesharwani Traders, D-692, Gali No. 1, Ashok Nagar, Mandoli, Delhi 110093	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.           3	Garg Enterprises, Through its Proprietor, At F-2/537-538, Sunder Nagari, Delhi 110093   S.A Garg Enterprises, Through its Proprietor, At Shop No. 9, Slum Market, G.T Road, Near Patrol Pump, Shahdara, Delhi 110093   Firefly Batteries Pvt. Ltd., Through its Director, 199, Neelkanth Bungalows, Behind DPS School, Bhopal, Ahmadabad, Gujarat 380058	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

25.10.2019 21.08.2023 06.11.2023

 

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 23.11.2018, the Complainant had purchased a e-rickshaw along with its four batteries from the Opposite Party No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 1,12,400/-. The Opposite Party No. 1 had sold four batteries of e-rickshaw for a sum of  Rs. 26,000/- along with 18 months warranty for the said batteries which were arranged by the Opposite Party No. 1 from the Opposite Party No. 2. It is his case that one of the four batteries stopped working properly and there was some charging issue in the said battery and for this reason Complainant could not ply the e-rickshaw. Thereafter, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No. 1, and then Opposite Party No. 1 told the Complainant to contact the Opposite Party No 2. After that the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No. 2 and Opposite Party No. 2 told the Complainant to contact the Opposite Party No. 3. As directed by Opposite Party No. 2, Complainant contacted the Opposite Party No. 3 and the number of Opposite Party No. 3 was not in use. Complainant again contacted the Opposite Party No. 1 and Opposite Party    No. 2 but they avoided the same on one pretext and other. Thereafter, the Complainant called at 100 number but they did not take any action. Complainant also sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties on 26.07.2019. It is his case that now all the four batteries had stopped working completely and Complainant could not ply e-rickshaw due to battery problem. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to repair the said batteries without any cost, Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment, Rs. 50,000/- for ongoing loss of earning and Rs. 21,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Parties despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 23.08.2022.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant as revealed form the record is that one battery out of the four batteries of the e-rickshaw stopped working properly and there was charging issue in the said battery. Now the question is that whether there was any charging problem in one of the battery. In this regard, apart from his affidavit the Complainant has not filed any evidence. The Complainant has not produced any job sheet or any report of the auto electrician to show that the said battery was not working properly. Further, the Complainant has not filed any document or evidence to show that he had got repaired the said battery from any auto electrician or that he had replaced the said old battery with a new one at his cost. The Complainant has not filed any document to show that he ever contacted Opposite Party No. 1 or Opposite Party No. 2 or that he ever made telephone call to Opposite Party No. 3 as alleged by him. Even the Complainant has not specified any date, month etc. when the said battery stopped working properly. The Complainant has not even specified the date, month etc. when he contacted the Opposite Parties.
5. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint. We do not find any merit in the complaint and the complaint is dismissed.
6. Order announced on 06.11.2023.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)