Haryana

Ambala

CC/412/2022

RAM PARKASH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GREEN AUTOMAOBILES ,AUTHORIZED DELAER OF WELKIN HELATHCARE PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

GOPAL.

04 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	412 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	11.11.2022
Date of decision	:	04.10.2024

Ram Parkash son of Shri Ram Charan aged about 65 years, resident of House No.62-A, Sunder Nagar, Post Office, Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

.…..Complainant

Vs.

1. Green Automobiles, Authorized dealer of WELKIN HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. C/o121-A, Railway Road, Foot Ball Chowk, Ambala Cantt., Haryana-133001, through its Proprietor.

2. WELKIN HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD C/o A-1 Block 39, Sector-6, Parwanoo, Himachal Pradesh, 173220, through its authorized signatory.

 

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                       Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Gopal Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Ajay Kumar Sahu, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace the defective battery of the E-ricshaw with a new one free of cost.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony, financial loss and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3.  To pay Rs.11,000/ as litigation expenses.
4. Grant any other relief which this Commission deems fit and proper.

 

2.             Brief facts of this case are that complainant wanted to purchase E-Richshaw for self employment, therefore, he visited the showroom of OP No.1 for purchasing an E-rickshaw and representative of the OP No.1 convinced the complainant by showing false/misleading advertisements catalogue/pamphets/brochure to purchase E-Rath/E-Rickshaw and assured the complainant, benefits like double income 120 km mileage 2 years chassis and 1 year battery warranty etc. Believing the assurance given by the representative of Op No.1, complainant purchased the said e-rickshaw bearing registration No.HR37E1237, model E-rath chassis No.M95WPEUP21BA00566, Engine No.WH0566 on 21.12.2021 after paying total sale consideration amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in cash. After 4 months of its purchase,  the said e-rickshaw started giving problem due to improper running and poor mileage of only 30-40 km as against promised/assured 120 kms and it also had defective battery. Therefore the complainant visited the showroom of Op No.1. The said E-rickshaw was inspected by its mechanic, who told the complainant that the battery of the E-rickshaw is defective and he repaired the same. He gave assurance that in case any problem occurred in the said battery in future then it will be replaced with the new one. In the month of July 2022, the said e-rickshaw again started giving mileage problem, therefore the complainant approached the OP No.1, and the battery of the e-rickshaw was inspected by its mechanic who told him that the battery is having leakage problem and he will request the company for the replacement of the same and he told the complainant to visit after a fortnight. Complainant again visited the OP No.1 but it was told to the complainant to visit after 15 days. Complainant visited the OP No.1, on 30.08.2022 and 15.09.2022, to get his e-rickshaw with the replaced battery but nothing was done by the OP No.1. Thereafter, complainant served a legal notice dated 19.09.2022, upon the OPs, but OP No.1 refused to receive the same and the OP No.2 did not reply the same.   The said act and conduct of the OPs, amounts to deficiency in providing service. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, not come with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts, estoppal, no locus standi, cause of action and jurisdiction etc. On merits, it has been stated that complainant purchased the E-Rath/E-Rikshaw from the OP No.1. At the time of purchase,  the said E-rickshaw was checked by the complainant thoroughly and after his satisfaction, the OP No.1 handed over the E-Rikshaw to the complainant with all necessary documents. The warranty for the said e-Rikshaw only for 9 months from the date of installation and for not two years. There is no complaint in writing/documents regarding problems in E-Rikshaw as well as in the batteries. Complainant never visited the OP No.1 regarding any problem in the battery of the E-Rikshaw, as such, the question of replacement of the battery does not arise at all. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with special costs.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OPs made a statement that on 22.07.2024 written version of OPs may be read as evidence of OPs and closed the evidence of the OPs.  
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the battery fitted in the vehicle in question was defective. The OPs neither repairing the defects therein nor replacing the defective battery nor refunding the price thereof, have committed deficiency in providing service.
7.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs submitted that the complainant has failed to place on record any evidence to prove that the battery in question is suffering from any defect. He further submitted that even no expert report has been sought by the complainant by way of sending the battery in question to any laboratory etc. through this Commission, which is mandatory under the provisions of CPA 2019. He further submitted that once no complaint has ever been raised by the complainant qua the defect in the battery, the question of defect rectification therein or replacement thereof with a new one or refunding the price thereof did not at all arise.
8.           The issue under consideration is whether the complainant has successfully demonstrated a defect in the battery in question or not. It is important to note that the complainant has claimed that the battery of the vehicle in question started giving problem i.e. improper running and poor mileage of 30-40 kms against the promised mileage of 120 kms, within 4 months of its purchase. There is no expert report or any other form of corroborative documentation which show malfunctioning of battery.  In conjunction with his complaint, the complainant has submitted only a tax invoice dated 21.12.2021, Annexure C-1 and its warranty card, Annexure C-2 to C-5, pertaining to the purchase of the vehicle in question, in which the battery in question is fitted. Additionally, he has provided his Aadhar card and also copy of legal notice dated 19.09.2022, Annexure C-7. These documents, while relevant to establishing the purchase of the said vehicle with the battery in question fitted therein, do not constitute sufficient evidence to substantiate his claim of a defect in the said battery. Even this much has not been proved by the complainant that he ever visited the premises of the OPs for alleged defect rectification in the battery of the vehicle in question. Simply presenting the invoice and identification does not meet the burden of proof required to establish that the battery is indeed defective. Consequently, without convincing evidence to validate his claims, it cannot be concluded that the battery in question has any inherent defect. Thus, the lack of evidence leads to the conclusion that the complainant has not successfully proven his case.
9.           In this view of the matter, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove his case, as such, no relief can be granted to him in that regard. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.   Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced:- 04.10.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President