Delhi

East Delhi

CC/205/2014

AJAY - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARBHAJAN AUTOMOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

13 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  205/14

 

Shri Ajay Jogi

S/o Shri Suresh Jogi

R/o X/3721, Gali No. 8

Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar

Delhi                                                                                             ….Complainant

 

Vs.

 

M/s. Harbhajan Automobiles

Through its Proprietor

11/3, Geeta Colony

Opp. Ramlila Ground, Gate No. 1

Delhi – 110 031                                                                              …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 25.02.2014

Judgement Reserved on : 13.10.2017

Judgement Passed on: 13.10.2017

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

 

Order By : Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Ajay Jogi against                 M/s. Harbhajan Automobiles (OP), under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant purchased an Auto Electronic Rickshaw with lead acid battery vide invoice no.PO110/13-14 dated 04.09.2013 from M/s. Harbhajan Automobiles (OP), which was said to be of a good quality and free from defect.  It has been stated that after purchase of 15 days, it started giving problem.  The complainant made several visits to the office of M/s. Harbhajan Automobiles (OP), but they made false excuses.  The complainant purchased the vehicle for his livelihood after taking amount on interest.  When the OP refused to replace the vehicle, the complainant has preferred this complaint for replacement of the vehicle as well as compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- alongwith litigation charges of   Rs. 5,500/-.

3.         Notice of the complaint was given to M/s. Harbhajan Automobiles (OP), whose manager appeared, but they did not file the reply.  During the course of proceedings, they stopped appearing.  Thus, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts, which have been stated in the complaint. 

5.         From the documents such as retail invoice, placed on record, it is evident that the complainant have purchased E-Rickshaw from               M/s. Harbhajan Automobiles (OP) along with lead acid battery by paying an amount of Rs. 61,875/-, price of E-Rickshaw and Rs. 5,456/-, price of lead acid battery 12Watt.  The other documents, which he has placed on record, are the complaints, made by the complainant to OP from time to time.  Though, no report in respect of any defect have been put on record, but the fact that complainant have made complaints to OP from time to time and they have chosen not to file any reply, the version given by the complainant have to be accepted.  Thus, from his version, it comes out that the vehicle, which was purchased by the complainant from M/s. Harbhajan Automobiles (OP) was defective one.  Thus a case of deficiency in goods have been made out. 

            In view of the above, we order that M/s. Harbhajan Automobiles (OP) must replace E-Rickshaw of complainant or refund a sum of Rs. 61,875/-, the value of E-Rickshaw.  They are further directed to pay an amount of  Rs. 10,000/- on account of compensation which includes the cost of litigation. 

            The order be complied within a period of 30 days. If not complied, the total amount of Rs. 71,875/- shall carry 9% interest from the date of order.  

            Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                             (SUKHDEV SINGH)

     Member                                                                                   President