O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P. u/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant on 13.06.2010 purchased a vehicle model Wave DX for a sum of Rs.27,550/- from the O.P-2. The said vehicle having identification No.22579 was manufactured by O.P-1 i.e. Hero Export, G.T. Road, Ludhana. It is further alleged in the complaint that since the date of purchase of the said vehicle it was giving trouble and O.P-2 assured that the vehicle would be fine after servicing. It is alleged that the complainant sent the vehicle for services on 05.07.2010, 04.09.2010, 12.11.2010 and lastly on 12.05.2011 but the fault in the said vehicle could not be removed by the O.P-2 and the scooty/ vehicle is still with the O.Ps at their service station. It is further alleged that the O.Ps are demanded extra charges for the replacement of the parts of the scooty. It has been further pleaded in the complaint that the battery of the scooty could not charged fully due to the defects in the battery and other technical problems in the machinery of the scooty. It has also been alleged that the scooty cannot run even 2 kilometer despite full charge of the battery. It is further alleged in the complaint that despite legal notice dated 11.05.2011 the O.Ps have failed to remove the defects in the scooty. The complainant vide the present claim is seeking direction to the O.Ps to exchange the said vehicle. It has been further prayed that a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental torture, harassment, humiliation etc. and Rs.11,000/- as legal expense be also awarded to the complainant.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the O.Ps who have filed their reply. The O.Ps in its reply has admitted the sale of vehicle to the complainant. The O.Ps has pleaded that the complainant has not given any dates regarding the problems which shows malafide on the part in the complaint. It is further pleaded by the O.Ps that the battery of the vehicle carries warranty of 180 days from the date of purchase which has already expired and they have legitimately demanded charges for doing repairs, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It has been further pleaded by the O.Ps that the vehicle did not have any technical and mechanical problems. The O.Ps have accepted the receipt of legal notice from the counsel of the complainant. The O.Ps have pleaded that the same was replied.
3. The complainant as well as O.Ps have filed their evidence by way of affidavits in support of respective averments made in the complaint and written statement. The complainant has filed Ex.PW-1/1 which is copy of sale invoice and Ex.PW-1/2 are the jobsheets of 12.11.2010 and 12.05.2011. The O.Ps have also filed Ex.PW-1/4 which is the extended warranty issued by the O.P-1. On the other hand O.P has filed an affidavit of Mr. Mohit Nishchal of Hero Electric alongwith his expert opinion. In its opinion the expert has reported that the vehicle has no manufacturing defects. The expert has also pointed out that the vehicle has given battery backup or average of 45 to 50 kilometer per charge.
4. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties as well as documents placed on record. It is an admitted fact that the battery operated scooty was purchased by the complainant from the O.Ps. It is also not disputed that the said scooty is still with the O.P-2 which is evident from the report of the expert who had inspected the vehicle. We find no reason to disbelieve the complainant regarding the faults immediately after the purchase of the said vehicle. The job card shows that the vehicle was given troubles since the very beginning. It has been admitted by the O.P that the warranty for the battery was for a period of 180 days. The job card dated 12.11.2010 shows that the vehicle was sent for servicing or repairs. The job cards do not reflect the complaint made by the complainant. It was the duty of the O.P to state the defects in the job card which it has failed to do for the reasons best known to it. The expert opinion has been obtained by the O.P without any notice to complainant. It is not the case of the O.P that the complainant was notified about the inspection. Therefore, the expert opinion is ex-parte and do not inspire confidence to believe it. From the above discussion and the documents placed on record, we are of the considered view that the O.Ps are jointly and severally deficient in service. Accordingly both the O.Ps are directed to replace the battery of the scooty with new battery and hand over the scooty to the complainant in running condition within a period of 30 days from the date of order. The complainant is also awarded a sum of Rs.4,000/- towards compensation which will also include cost of litigation. Ordered accordingly.
Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced on this 09th day of May,2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
