Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 484
Instituted on : 05.10.2018
Decided on : 11.10.2024.
Khushi minor d/o Sh. Sunil Kumar s/o Sh. Lekh Raj R/o H.No.863/14, Guru Nanakpura, MandirWaligaliRohtakDistt. Rohtak through her father Sunil Kumar as her natural guardian.
..............Complainant.
Vs.
- Hero Electric Vehicle Pvt. Ltd. Ludhiana(Punjab) Through its Managing Director.
- K.L.Automobiles, 1139/22, Mansarover Park Lane’ near Prem Gas Service, Rohtak, Distt. Rohtak-124001. Through its Managing Director.
- K.L.Automobiles, near Prem Gas Services, Mansarover Park, RothakDistt. Rohtak-124001, through its Manager.
- Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd., Regd. Office: Unit No.401, 4th Floor, Sangam Complex-127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri(E) Mumbai-400059 Through its Managing Director.
……….opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: None for complainant.
Sh.AmanAttri, for the opposite party No.1.
Sh.Anoop Malik Advocate for opposite party no.2 & 3.
Sh.Gulshan Chawla Advocate for opposite party No.4.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are thatshe had purchasedan electric vehicle vide invoice no.500 dated 25.01.2018 for a sum of Rs.35893/- from the opposite party No.2 who is authorised dealer of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is manufacturer of the above said vehicle. Opposite party no.1 delivered the above said vehicle on dated 27.01.2018 vide temp. delivery challan bearing serial no.309. The above said vehicle is also insured with the opposite party no.4(wrongly mentioned as respondent no.3). It is further submitted that after some time of purchase of the said vehicle, it started giving problems in smooth running. Complainant visited the office of the respondent no.2 for the said difficulties and opposite party No.2 directed the complainant to contact the opposite party No.3. The complainant visited the office of respondent no.3 regarding the said problems in the vehicle on various dates i.e. 21.06.2018, 29.06.2018, 08.07.2018, 03.09.2018 and some parts of the vehicle were replaced but the problems could not be resolved. It was again sent to the service center and was returned to the complainant after 5 days. The complainant again felt problem in starting of her vehicle so she was again advised to get the battery of the vehicle replaced. It was replaced accordingly but the problem in the above said vehicle is still continue. It is further submitted that from the day of purchasing the vehicle to till date, it was not functioning one way or the other the complainant has found hervehicle a peace of toy without working. The act of opposite parties of selling the defective vehicle to the complainant is amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Complainant requested the opposite parties to replace the alleged vehicle but the same was refused by the respondents. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to exchange the said defective electric vehicle with a new one or to refund the cost of vehicle Rs.35893/-, to pay Rs.20000/- as damages, deficiency in service and also to pay Rs.10000/- on account of mental tension & harassment and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, noticeswere issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in preliminary objections of its reply has submitted that the complainant did not take proper care of the vehicle on time and moreover, the complainant had driven the vehicle in a negligent and careless manner and had not followed the guidelines which were given to the complainant at the time of handed over the said vehicle. On merits, it is submitted that complainant never approached or visited the office of respondents on the dates mentioned in the complaint. The complainanthowever visited the respondent no.2 in the month of August 2018 with some minor issues and the same was resolved. The vehicle was delivered after receiving the signed satisfaction from the complainant. Thereafter no complaint regarding any problem has ever been received verbally or in written from the complainant. The complainant has never got his vehicle serviced on regular intervals as prescribed in the service book and thus violated the warranty agreement with the company. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite
3. Opposite party No.2 & 3 in their reply has submitted that the opposite party no.2 & 3 are only authorized dealers to sale and service the vehicle manufactured by Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Limited and are not personally liable for any problem in the vehicle which may arise due to normal wear and tear or due to negligent use of the vehicle by the purchaser. The opposite party No.2 & 3 work only as a messenger in between the end user and the company and hence deny any liability pertaining to the product of the company. Opposite party No.2 & 3 also reiterated the contents of the reply filed by the opposite party no.1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Opposite party No.4 in its reply has submitted that the vehicle in question being insured with the respondent vide policy no.USG1H/2018022773 for the period of 27.01.2018 to 26.01.2019 for IDV Rs.35893/- is correct. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavits Ex.C1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5and closed his evidence on dated 27.01.2020. On the other hand, opposite party No.1 made a statement that reply already filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 be read in evidence, filed document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on 09.03.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.2 & 3 also made a statement that reply filed on their behalf be read in evidence and closed his evidence on 09.03.2021. Ld. Counsel for opposite party No.4 tendered affidavit Ex.RW4/A, documents Ex.R4/1 to Ex.R4/2 and closed his evidence on 04.11.2020.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
7. In the present case as per the complainant she had purchased the Optima Plus HeroElectric vehicle vide invoice no.500 dated 25.01.2018 for a sum of Rs.35893 from the respondent no.2 vide bill Ex.C2 dated 25.01.2018. The vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 27.01.2018 vide delivery challan which is placed on record as Ex.C1. The vehicle was insured through respondent no.4 and the policy is placed on record as Ex.C3. The complainant has placed on record two more documents i.e. a certificate issued by Hero Electric as Ex.C4 and an email written to Hero Electric as Ex./C5. The main contention of the complainant is that from the date of purchase, she is facing technical problem in the vehicle in question. She visited the service centre of company i.e. opposite party No.3 so many times. As per para no.5 of the complaint, she visited the service centre on 21.06.2018, 29.06.2018, 08.07.2018 and 03.09.2018 but the problems continuously occurred in the vehicle in question. Thereafter the respondent no.3 replaced some defective parts of the vehicle but the problem still persists. It has been further pleaded that just after the purchase, the complainant faced some problem in the vehicle and the battery has been replaced but the defect couldnot be removed and she is continuously facing the problem till filing of the complaint. We have minutely perused the written statement filed by opposite party No.1 to 3. Opposite party No.1, 2 & 3 made a statement that written statement filed on their behalf be also read in their evidence. No other document is placed on record. We have perused the documents placed on record by the complainant. There is strength in the pleading and evidence of the complainant that she is facing technical problem in the vehicle in question just after the purchase. The respondents replaced the charger of the vehicle just within one month of its purchase i.e. on 19.02.2018 and an endorsement has been made on the purchase bill i.e. Ex.C2. The technical defect has not been removed after replacement of the power charger and on 24.02.2018 all the four batteries have been replaced by the respondents no.3 and again made an endorsement alongwith the new batteries on 24.02.2018 upon the purchase bill. As per the complainant the problem still persists in the vehicle and the vehicle is not running properly. We have minutely perused the written statement filed by the respondent. Some objections have been taken by the respondent no.1 as well as respondent no.2 & 3 that the complainant did not take proper care of the vehicle and moreover complainant had driven the vehicle in negligent and careless manner. But in support of these contentions, the respondents have not placed on record any technical or documentary evidence that the complainant used the vehicle in negligent manner. It has been admitted by the respondents that the complainant visited the service centre of the respondent no.2 in August 2018, but the respondent no.1 to 3 have not mentioned in their written statement that power charger has been changed on 09.02.2018 and all 4 batteries have been replaced by the respondent no.3 i.e. service centre of opposite party no.1 on 24.02.2018. Meaning thereby respondent no.1 to 3 are concealing the material facts. So it is proved that there is technical and manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.1 being manufacturer and opposite party no.1 is liable to refund the price of vehicle to the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.35893/-(Rupees thirty five thousand eight hundred and ninety three only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 05.10.2018 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as well as litigation expensesto the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the vehicle in question to the opposite party No.1 at the time of making the payment by opposite party no.1.
9. Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
10. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
11.10.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
