Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.           The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that on 17.07.2021, the complainant purchased four batteries 12V28Ah/20Hr 6-DZF-23L of Yakuza Company for his electric scooter amounting to Rs.10,500/- from Opposite Party No.2 and at that time complainant paid Rs.7300/- through phone pay and the remaining amount of Rs.3200/- was paid cash by the complainant. Opposite Party No.2 fitted the above said four batteries in the scooter of complainant and gave assurance to complainant that above said batteries are of the best quality and Opposite Party No.2 also gave guarantee for one year of the above said four batteries to the complainant. At that time complainant demanded guarantee card/bill from Opposite Party No.2, but inspite of giving guarantee card/bill to the complainant, Opposite Party No.2 mentioned the guarantee period as 6 + 6 on each batteries with marker and also mentioned the date of purchase on the said batteries as 17.07.2021 and Opposite Party No.2 told the complainant that the above said writing on each and every batteries should be considered as Guarantee card/bill. After about 10 months from the date of purchase of above said batteries, complainant felt that the batteries are not working properly and then complainant approached Opposite Party No.2 regarding not proper working of the above said batteries and then Opposite Party No.2 after checking the same told the complainant that the batteries has been dead and are required to be changed and Opposite Party No.2 also told the complainant to purchase new batteries for his electric scooter for Rs.12,500/-. But when the complainant told the Opposite Party No.2 that the above said batteries are within guarantee period, then Opposite Party No.2 not listen any request of the complainant. The complainant made various requests to Opposite Party No.2 to change the said batteries with new batteries as the same are within the guarantee period, but all in vain. Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 17.06.2022 to Opposite Parties, through his counsel, but to no effect. Due to the acts of the Opposite Parties complainant suffered mental tension and harassment. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to change the batteries (four batteries) of the electric scooter of the complainant.

b)      To pay an amount of R.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.       Opposite Party No.1 did not turn up despite service of notice, hence proceeded against exparte.

3.       Opposite Party No.2 appeared in person and filed written reply stating that Opposite Party No.2 did not sell said batteries of electric scooter to the complainant. If complainant had purchased said batteries from Opposite Party No.2, the bill/receipt (if any) would have mentioned the same. The amount of Rs.7300/- which complainant claims to have paid into the account of Opposite Party No.2 via UPI is the payment against a bill for repair of the vehicle. The complainant has filed this frivolous complaint in lieu of extracting money from Opposite Party No.2. It is well established laws that no one can file any complaint before Consumer Commission without purchase bill and/or proof of service against which the complainant is claiming deficiency in service. In this case, the complainant has not submitted any bill or receipt on record to prove his complaint. Claimed further this complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and liable to be dismissed with cost. On merits, all other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Complainant has also filed replication to the written reply of Opposite Party No.2, denying the objections raised by Opposite Party No.2 in its written reply.

4.       In order to prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C11.

5.       To rebut the evidence of complainant, Sh.Balwinder Singh Proprietor of opposite party no.2 tendered in evidence copy of bill Ex.OP2/1 and his affidavit Ex.OP2/2 and his additional affidavit Ex.OP2/3.

6.       We have heard the counsel for the parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.

7.       First contention of the complainant is that he purchased four batteries 12V28AH/20Hr 6-DZF-23L of Yakuza Company for an amount of Rs.7300/- for his electric scooter, but the complainant has failed to produce on record copy of the bill of the said batteries. Ld. counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant has made the payment of Rs.7300/- for the said batteries into the account of Opposite Party No.2 via UPI and Rs.3200/- in cash. But from the perusal of the said transaction receipt Ex.C10, it does not reveal that the said payment is regarding purchase of batteries in question. On the other hand, Opposite Party No.2 contended the said payment transferred by the complainant is regarding repair of the vehicle of the complainant and to prove this fact, Opposite Party No.2 placed on record copy of repair bill amounting to Rs.7310/- Ex.OP2/1.  Moreover no any guarantee/warranty card of the batteries in question is placed on record by the complainant. Hence, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove his case by any cogent and convincing evidence on record.

8.       In view of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced on Open Commission