Haryana

Kurukshetra

94/2017

Rajinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indian Standered - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

28 Mar 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint case no.94 of 2017.

Date of instt. 2.5.2017. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 28.3.2019.

 

Rajender Kumar son of Shri Ram Chander, Rented Home House No.2361, Sector-3, Old H.B.C. Near Main Market, Sector-3, Kurukshetra, now presently residing at House No.1230, Sector-3, Kurukshetra.

 

                                                ……..Complainant.

                        Vs.

1. Indian Standard Engine Care Centre, H, Office near Gandhi Hospital, Tehsil road, Panipat, Branch Office, Near Police Station, Ladwa Road, Pipli, District Kurukshetra.
2. Punjab National Bank, Sector-5, Kurukshetra through its Branch Manager.
3. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, Sector-8, HUDA, Housing Board, Umri, District Kurukshetra, near Ayurvedic College, Kurukshetra.
4. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited through its agent Shri Sarabjit Singh, resident of Sector-17, Kurukshetra.

..………Opposite parties.

 

Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.                   

 

Before:               Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                        Ms. Neelam, Member.

                        Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

 

Present:             Sh. Shekhar Thakur, Advocate for complainant.      

     Opposite party no.1 in person.

Sh. Lovkesh Machhal, Advocate for opposite party No.2.

Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for opposite parties no.3 and 4.

           

ORDER     

                         This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Rajender Kumar against Indian Standard engine care centre & others, the opposite parties.

2.                Brief facts of the present complaint are that on 17.1.2017, the complainant purchased an e-rickshaw model no. shine shine vide invoice No.3 vide loan agreement from Punjab National Bank, Kurukshetra which was insured vide insurance policy bearing No.50105423 for the period 17.1.2017 to 16.1.2018 from ops no.3 and 4 through its agent Shri Sarabjit Singh on payment of premium of insurance to the tune of Rs.3277/-. That the agent of the insurance company insured the vehicle only for the amount of Rs.80,000/- but the total cost of the vehicle was paid by Punjab National Bank for the amount of Rs.1,08,000/-. It is further averred that op no.1 has cheated the complainant by charging Rs.28,000/- in excess from complainant as the actual costs of the vehicle is only Rs.80,000/- as is evident from the insurance cover note/ insurance policy. That at the time of sale of above said vehicle, the op no.1 had assured about the good quality of the product and further assured that within the warranty period of nine months, he would provide replacement of the product in case of any kind of defect in it. That the battery installed in the E-rickshaw are of very poor quality and defective because the vehicle depends on the battery and it run a short distance and thereafter automatically stops on the road and the complainant is required to bring the vehicle to op no.1 after toeing by making payment of huge amount to the other vehicles. It is further averred that due to non working of the vehicle, the complainant is unable to pay the loan installment to the bank and the bank has charged the interest on due amount. That the complainant purchased the above said vehicle for earning his livelihood and his family members and not for commercial purpose. The complainant visited the showroom of op no.1 several times and requested to replace the defective vehicle or to refund the amount charged but he did not pay any heed rather threatened him not to come again. Hence, this complaint.

3.             On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed reply raising certain preliminary objections regarding locus standi, suppression of material facts and cause of action. It is submitted that the true facts of the case are that the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra for the unemployed person, organized a fair for distributing E-rickshaw on 100% loan facility through Bank. The Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra also demanded quotation from the dealers of E-rickshaw including the answering op. The answering op submitted quotation report before the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra of the above said model which is as under:-

                Basic Price                 Rs.88,000/-

                Vat                            Rs.4850/-

                R.C. charges               Rs.8500/-

                Insurance charges       Rs.4500/-

                Logistic Charges          Rs.2000/-

                Tem. Number             Rs.150/-

                Total                         Rs.1,08,000/-

                Thus, as per the above said report, the basic price of the said E-rickshaw model is Rs.88,000/-. At the time of handing over the possession of vehicle, these facts were duly disclosed to the complainant. Now the complainant being keen and clever person became dishonest and wants to grab the loan amount as well as vehicle. He intentionally and deliberately has not got registered the vehicle with concerned department and is not paying the loan installment. Now there is no liability of answering op for the penalty of registration of the vehicle. There is huge penalty of finance company outstanding against the complainant, thus the complainant wants to save his liability to pay the penalty as well as loan amount, hence he has come to the answering op with the suggestion to resale the vehicle. The answering op has suffered huge loss due to the act and conduct of complainant. It is further submitted that at the time of sale of above said vehicle, the answering op fully disclosed to the complainant that the warrantee of said vehicle will be continued for a period of only six months and in the warranty period, if any part of vehicle will be defective, then the answering op will repair the same. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.

4.               Opposite party no.2 in separate written statement resisted the complaint by taking certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that loan was disbursed to the complainant by the answering op and complainant agreed to pay the loan amount as per loan agreement. The vehicle was insured for Rs.80,000/- by the insurance company. However, the answering op disbursed the loan amount of Rs.1,08,000/- to the complainant. It is further submitted that answering op has right to recover the outstanding amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement as agreed between the complainant and the answering op.  Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.

5.             Ops no.3 and 4 in their written statement took certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that as per complaint there is manufacturing defects in the batteries of the vehicle and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued to complainant does not cover any manufacturing defect of battery of vehicle.

6.             The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, ops no.3 and 4 produced affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. Op no.1 produced affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R5. OP no.2 produced documentsEx.R2AtoEx.R2/C.

7.             We have heard learned counsel for complainant, op no.1 and learned counsel for ops no.2 to 4 and have perused the case file carefully.

8.             The opposite party no.1 has clarified that the ex-showroom price of the E-rickshaw is Rs.88,000/- and its insured amount is Rs.80,000/- and loan amount of Rs.1,08,000/- paid by the bank was total amount of above said e-rickshaw including VAT, registration charges, insurance charges, logistic charges and temporary number charges. The said fact is evident from detailed quotation Ex.R4. So, it is proved on record that ex-showroom price of the vehicle was Rs.88,000/- and the insurance company insured the said vehicle for the amount of Rs.80,000/- and the bank advanced the loan amount of Rs.1,08,000/- to the op no.1 on behalf of complainant for purchase of the said vehicle and the said amount includes the price of the vehicle and other above said charges. So, it cannot be said that complainant was cheated by charging excess amount from him rather the amount of Rs.1,08,000/- includes the price of the vehicle and registration, insurance and other misc. charges. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of ops no.2 to 4.

9.             In so far as defect of the battery of the vehicle is concerned, it may be mentioned here that complainant purchased the vehicle in question from op no.1 on 17.1.2017 and filed the present complaint on 2.5.2017 i.e. within warrantee period. Moreover, the op no.1 has not denied the defect in the batteries of the vehicle in question. This means that there is defect in the vehicle from beginning. So, the op no.1 only is liable to replace the vehicle in question and not replacing of the same clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of op no.1.

10.            In view of above, we allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.1 and direct the opposite party no.1 to replace the vehicle in question of the complainant without any cost. The op no.1 is liable to comply with this order within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 25/27 of the Act against the op no.1. However, complaint qua ops no.2 to 4 stands dismissed.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules.  File be consigned to the record room. 

 Announced:      

Dt.28.03.2019.                                             (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.