Delhi

East Delhi

CC/30/2015

ANKIT - Complainant(s)

Versus

HERO ELECTRIC - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

                     CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                                        Consumer complaint no.     30 / 2015                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution            28/01/2015

                                                                                                        Order reserved on            11/01/2017

                                                                                                        Date of Order                     12/01/2017               

In matter of

Mr Ankit Pal, adult

S/o Surender Pal       

R/o- A 22/8, Gali no. 4

East Vinod Nagar, Delhi  110091…………………………………..…………….Complainant                                                                    

                                                                           

                                                                              Vs

1-M/s Hero Electric   

50, Okhla Industrial Estate, Phase III,

New Delhi 110020

 

2-M/s Hero electric, Phase VIII,

Focal Point, Village-Mangli

Ludhiana, Punjab 141101                                               

 

3-Indian Motors

175, F, Industrial Estate,

Patpargunj, Delhi 110092……..……………………….………………………….Respondents

 

Complainant………………..………………….Rajiv Ranjan, Advocate

Opponent……………..…………………………kuldeep Tiku - AR

 

Quorum ………………………………………….Sh Sukhdev Singh       President

                                                                   Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                                                                   Smt Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                                     

                    

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief  Facts of the case                                                                                                   

Complainant purchased a Hero Wave DX Scooty bearing model no. L8626 from OP3 on dated 28/07/2014 for a sum of Rs 43518/ as marked Ex CW1/1. He was 15% subsidy by DPCC of Rs 6528/-. As scotty had average of 30 km in its first full charging, so he took his Scotty to OP3, who assured for good average after some more time of running. Complainant asked for replacement which was denied.

 

On next date, the average was 25 km, so he again went to OP3 and made complaint about average.  After advising from OP3, complainant took his Scotty to service center OP2, and after two days, he brought scotty back, but his dickey lock was not functioning well so he again went to OP2 and got it repaired. Thereafter, he visited number of times to OP2 for setting average of his scotty, but OP3 told to replace battery and then converter. So even after changing battery and converter, the average was not up to 70km as it was promised by OP3 at the time of purchase as marked here CW1/2 & authority letter from OP1 as no driving licence was required as marked CW1/3.

Thereafter, lodged his complaint to customer care at its corporate office at OP1 and also sent letters and emails, but did not get any reply as marked CW1/ 4 & 5. Hence, complainant filed this complaint for deficiency in service by OPs claiming replacement of scotty by new one with compensation of Rs 20,000/- as compensation cost.

Notices were served. OP3 on behalf of OP 1 & 2 jointly filed written statement and denied all the facts and allegations against complainant and stated that there was neither deficiency in services nor manufacturing defect in the said scotty.  It was stated that complainant was guilty of ‘suggestio falsi and suppression veri’ and many material facts were deliberately hidden before the Hon. Forum and thus liable to be dismissed.  

It was admitted that the said scotty was purchased from OP3 who was the authorized dealer of OP1 and was getting regular services as and when demanded by complainant. OP stated that their every products were having one year standard warranty except fragile items like plastic parts, rubber parts and bulbs, reflectors and battery, though these items had six months warranty.  It was mentioned in the operating manual. Battery condition depends upon whether, driving way of vehicle. It was also stated that complainant had written on customer’s satisfaction notes as received vehicle duly repaired to my entire satisfaction. OP had annexed service /job sheet’s zerox on record.   

Complainant filed his rejoinder and evidences on affidavit where he affirmed that the said vehicle had manufacturing defects and was taken for service every month to OP3. OP had also filed evidences on affidavit which were on record.

 

OP 1 & 2 jointly stated on affidavit through Sh Kuldeep Tiku who stated that complainant had no concrete evidence to prove any deficiency in services by OP1 and OP2. Complainant had never come for service of his scotty but some other person in the name of Lalit used to come and was fully satisfied with services given by OPs. OP 1 affirmed on oath that all the evidences submitted by them were relied by them and there was no deficiency on the part of OP3. The Exhibit RW1/2 was as first service dated 13/08/2014 where battery testing was done. The job sheet vide no. 920 was in the name of complainant whereas Mr Lalit brought the scotty and was taken back with full satisfaction with his signatures on it on dated 17/08/2014.

 

The said vehicle was brought on dated 11/09/2014 for seat lock problem vide job sheet no. 1061. It was adjusted and returned vide Ex RW1/3. The vehicle was brought on dated 15/10/2014 for mileage problem as it was up to 20-25 km on full charge. After check by OP3, it was found that battery was not charging properly, so battery was replaced and charging motor was also changed and scotty was taken back by complainant’s brother Mr Lalit as per Ex. RW1/4. OP1 submitted evidence RW1/5 where it was stated that there was some rear carrier adjustment problem which was again rectified. On dated 26/11/2014, scotty was brought for rear carrier adjustment and left horn was not functioning. So, problems were rectified and scotty was received by brother of complainant with full satisfaction. It was noted by OP3 that body of scotty had multiple scratches and anti theft alarm was also changed as these parts were under warranty. Rear carrier was not under warranty, so was changed against cost which was paid.  

 

On 31/01/2015, scotty was brought by Mr Lalit with complaint of horn, light and indicator were not working. A job sheet was prepared vide no. 081. It was noticed that the convertor was not working properly, so it was replaced and vehicle was returned on the same date as the part was under warranty vide Ex RW/1/7 & 7A.

The scotty was again brought for steering lock and seat lock problem. After inspection, it was found that sensor of seat lock was not functioning besides sensor was also not working, so was replaced as it was under warranty as per Ex RW1/8.

 

It was stated on oath by OP3 that complainant availed all the services free of cost and required parts were replaced which were under warranty. OP3 also stated on affidavit through their authorized representative Mr Ravinder Singh, who affirmed for all the facts submitted in their written statement and stated that there was no deficiency in services whenever said vehicle was brought to OP3. Hence, the said complaint be dismissed.

On the date of arguments, complainant did not come and even on earlier dates also he was not putting his appearance. OPs were present. File was perused and order was reserved.  

 

After perusal of all the facts and evidences filed by the parties, it was evident that complainant had not been able to prove the deficiency of OP3 and any manufacturing defect in the said vehicle by OP2. Hence, we come to the conclusion that complaint has no merit and the same deserves to be dismissed, so complaint is dismissed without cost.

 

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per the rules and the file be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                         Mrs Harpreet Kaur   Member

                                                  

                                                    Shri Sukhdev Singh - President