Delhi

East Delhi

CC/745/2013

MAHINDER MADAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIAN MOTORS - Opp.Party(s)

03 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 745/13

Sh. MAHINDER MADAAN

R/O D-101, MAYURDHWAJ, APARTMENTS I.P. EXT.

1.  

                                                                                                           ….Complainant

Vs

 

1. INDIAN MOTORS

OFF-175, G FLOOR, F.I.E. PATPARGANJ

NEW DELHI-110092

 

2. HERO ELECTRIC VEHICLE (p) LTD.

NORTH-1, 50, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL

ESTATE-III, NEW DELHI-110020          

                                                                                                           ….Opponents

 

Date of Institution: 27.08.2013

Judgment Reserved for: 03.01.2018

Judgment Passed on: 04.01.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

ORDER BY: Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

JUDGEMENT

1. Complainant Shri. Mahinder Madaan has filed the present complaint against Indian Motors (OP-1) and Hero Electric Vehicle Pvt. Ltd., (OP-2) Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Optima Plus Black with chassis no. 013036944 from OP-1, authorized dealer of OP-2, for Rs.32,500/- on 07.04.2013. It has been stated that the said vehicle was not functioning properly as there was complaint of “front wheel vibration, handle problem, average problem” for which the complainant contacted one Mr. Ravinder who refused to repair the same. It has been further stated that after some time the complainant again called and discussed the above mentioned problems with Mr. Ravinder who asked him to visit the service centre for resolution of the problems. On 26.05.2013 the vehicle was checked, but the problems complained were not rectified and at the same time Rs. 350/- were charged from the complainant.  Again on 17.06.2013, the complainant visited the OP with the complaint of low average for which job sheet no.1029 was issued. The complainant was informed that there was problem with the battery which needed replacement and the vehicle was handed over to the complainant on 28.06.2013, but the complainant continued to face the problems mentioned above for which he approached the OP and vide E.mails dated 09.07.2013, 13.07.2013, he apprised the OP of the same, but he did not get any satisfactory reply.
3. It has been further stated that despite personal visits and telephonic conversation with OP, the problem of the complainant was not rectified. The complainant has also stated that service book was not given to him for about six months. Hence, the present complaint alleging manufacturing defects in the vehicle and praying for directions to OP to refund Rs.32,500/- along with 24% interest from the date of purchase i.e 07.04.2013 or replacement; “Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- being the cost of litigation”.
4. Complainant has annexed retail invoice dated 07.04.2013, retail invoice/cash memo dated 26.05.2013 for Rs.350/- copy of important serial numbers of the electric vehicle, service/maintenance record, E.mails exchanged between the complainant and OP dated09.07.2013, 10.07.2013, 13.07.2013, with the complaint.
5. Reply on behalf of OP-1 & OP-2 was filed after the notice of the present complaint, was issued to the OPs wherein it was stated that at the time of purchase of the vehicle the complainant was duly informed that the warranty period of the vehicle was 360 days from the date of sale on all the parts excepts fragile items like plastic parts/ rubber parts/bulbs/reflectors and fasteners and for the battery warranty period was only 240 days. It was further submitted that in case the vehicle was not used in accordance with the operating instruction mentioned in the owner’s manual of the product then in that case vehicle was not covered under warranty. It was submitted that the average of the vehicle depended on number of factors such as the load traffic condition and frequent application of brake. OPs have submitted that the complainant visited the service station on 07.06.2013, 04.07.2013 and had signed the Job Card mentioning “received vehicle duly repaired to my entire satisfaction”. Rests all the contents of the complaint were denied.
6. The complainant in his Rejoinder to the written statement denied all the contents of the reply filed by OP-1 and OP-2 and reiterated those of his complaint.
7. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed on behalf of the complainant who has reiterated the contents of the complaint on oath and has stated that there was problem in battery within first two months of purchase.
8. OP examined Shri Kuldeep Taaku, AR of OP-2 who has also reiterated the contents of their reply and has relied on copies of Job Cards as Annexure-A (colly).
9. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and AR for OP-1 and OP-2 and have perused the material placed on record. The complainant has stated that there was problem of vibration of the front wheel and handle, for which he approached the OP, if we look into the Job Sheet annexed by the OP no where the complainant in his complaint has mentioned the said problem. As per his complaint with respect to the battery the same was duly replaced being under warranty, for which Job Sheet no. 1832 dated 06.10.2013 was issued. OP has further placed on record Job Sheets dated 12.05.2013, 17.06.2013, 14.07.2013, and Job Sheet dated 19.01.2014, all the Job Sheets bear customer signature wherein it has been stated that “received vehicle duly repaired to my entire satisfaction”. The allegation of non supply of the service booklet for six months cannot believed as the service/maintenance record annexed with the complaint shows 12.05.2013 as first free service done for which job card no. 848 was issued which is 35 days after the date of purchase. The complainant has not placed anything on record to prove that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect or had problems as mentioned in the complaint. It is only in the complaint he has alleged of the problems mentioned above. When OP has replaced the batteries, which were under warranty period, no deficiency in service can be attributed on their part. Hence present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merit with no order to cost.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

File be consigned to R/R.

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                              (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                  MEMBER                                                                     PRESIDENT