Haryana

Karnal

CC/582/2022

Vikram Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Malik Motots Electric Geen - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhdev Singh

02 Jan 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 582 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.14.10.2022

                                                      Date of Decision:02.01.2024

 

Vikram Singh age 31 years son of Shri Rameshwar Nand, resident of 33-A, Railway Road, near Krishna Yoga Ashram, Chaan Garden, Karnal.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Malik Motors Electric Green near Apollo Tyres, Meerut Road, Karnal-132001 through its proprietor/partner.
2. Raftaar Electric, Chandigarh-Landra-Sirhind Road, village Sampla, Chandigarh.

…..Opposite Parties.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

              Dr. Suman Singh……Member

 

Argued by:  Shri Sukhdev Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Ramchander Tyagi, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    OP no.2 exparte, vide order dated 12.12.2022.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:                     

          

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that on 16.06.2021, complainant purchased an electric Bike (R-Electrica) from OP no.1, who is the authorized dealer of the OP no.2, for the total sale consideration of Rs.69,500/- in cash. After purchase of the said electric scooter, the same was being driven by the complainant as per instruction given in the booklet and he was serving the said scooter according to the instruction given in the booklet. After few months of the purchase of said electric bike, it started giving so many problems. Complainant visited the OP no.1 several times for rectifying the problem but the fault/default has not been removed by the OP despite their best efforts. In the month of December, 2021, complainant got checked the abovesaid electric bike from the service centre of the OP no.1, who after checking the same, told the complainant that there is a defect in battery of the said electric vehicle for one month, they replaced the defected battery with another battery. During this one month of keeping the said electric vehicle under the possession of the OP no.1, complainant faces harassment and mental agony and also suffered financial loss. After one month, the said vehicle started creating same problem (stopped within running 3-4 Kms despite of having full charge) and then complainant again approached the OP no.1 and found that OP no.1 has closed/shifted their office/agency to some other place without giving information to their customer. Complainant tried to contact the OP no.1 telephonically and told them about the problem in the vehicle in question, upon which OP assured the complainant to replace the said battery again but they referred the complainant to get checked his vehicle from some other mechanic and when complainant got checked his vehicle from that mechanic, he became astonished to know that the battery fitted in his electric vehicle is 2-3 years old defected battery which was replaced by the OP no.1 upon which the complainant protest to OP no.1, who asked the complainant to handover the said defected battery to that mechanic and they would deliver the new battery but since then complainant has been continuously contacted the OP no.1, but they lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi and mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party as there is a defect in the Lithium Phosphate/Lithim ion battery and same is manufactured by Volta Lithium Hub Pvt. Ltd. so the said party also necessary and proper party. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 is the authorized dealer of OP no.2. OP no.2 is the manufacturer of the electric scooters and OP no.2 is sole liable if there is any defect in its product. The electric scooter and its part are indemnified by the OP no.2 by way of providing the warranty against them. It is further pleaded that complainant visited the OP no.1 for rectification of the defect in the electric scooter but the battery of the electric scooter did not perform good despite cleaning and charging.  The electric scooter was got checked in the showroom of the OP no.1 in the month of December, 2021 and after checked OP no.1 found the defect in the Lithim Phosphate battery. OP no.1 on the very same day got the battery removed and sent it to the OP no.2 for repair/replacement. OP made number of phone call to the OP no.2 for repair/replacement and dispatch. The mechanic of the OP no.2 after one month came to the showroom of the OP no.1 with the another serviceable Lithium Ion battery and installed it in the electric scooter of the complainant. The electric scooter was delivered on the same day to the complainant from the showroom of the OP no.1. It is further pleaded that there is no defect in the battery fitted in the new electric scooter. The rectification of the defect and the replacement of the component i.e. battery is domain of the OP no.2 and manufacture. The OP no.1 provided the service to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of the complainant. It is further pleaded that thereafter complainant contacted the OP no.1 in the month of September, 2022 and again explained the problem in his electric scooter. On 17.09.2022 electric scooter was inspected and checked and it is found that the battery is not functioning properly matter was reported by the OP no.1 to the OP no.2 who directed him to sent the battery to the manufacturer for rectification of the defect/replacement. OP no.1 sent the battery to its manufacturer and after rectification of the defect in the battery within 10 days sent it back to the OP no.1. OP no.1 also suffered huge loss in the business of electric scooter as electric scooter manufactured by the OP no.2 did not perform well in the market and OP no.2 did not provide proper service and delivered to the OP no.1 and purchasers.  Therefore, OP no.1 compel to cancel his dealership with the OP no.2. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 12.12.2022 of the Commission.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of tax invoice dated 16.06.2021 Ex.C1, copy of warranty card Ex.C2 and closed the evidence on 04.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Amit Malik prop. Ex.OP1/A, copy of authorized dealership letter Ex.OP1, copy of bill/tax invoice Ex.OP2, builty copies dated 14.12.2021 and 17.09.2022 Ex.OP3 and Ex.OP4, photo of battery description Ex.OP5, copy of registration certificate Ex.OP6, copy of order for cancellation of registration Ex.OP7 and closed the evidence on 13.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased an electric Bike from OP no.1. OP no.2 is the manufacturer of the said electric scooter. After few months its purchase,, it started giving problems. Complainant visited the OP no.1 several times for rectifying the problem but the fault/default has not been removed by the OP despite their best efforts. In the month of December, 2021, complainant got checked the abovesaid electric bike from the service centre of the OP no.1, who after checking told that there is a defect in battery and they replaced the defected battery with another battery. After one month, the said vehicle again started creating same problem. Complainant contacted the OP no.1 and OP assured the complainant to replace the said battery again but till date battery has not been replaced by the OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1 while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that OP no.1 is the authorized dealer of OP no.2. OP no.2 is the manufacturer of the electric scooters and OP no.2 is sole liable if there is any defect in its product. Complainant visited the OP no.1 for rectification of the defect in the electric scooter. OP no.1 checked the scooter and found that the defect in the Lithim Phosphate battery. OP no.1 on the very same day got the battery removed and sent it to the OP no.2 for repair/replacement. The mechanic of the OP no.2 after one month came to the showroom of the OP no.1 with the another serviceable Lithium Ion battery and installed it in the electric scooter of the complainant. The electric scooter was delivered on the same day to the complainant. The OP no.1 provided the service to the best of his ability and to the satisfaction of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           Admittedly, on 16.06.2021 complainant purchased one electric scooter from the OP no.1. It is also admitted that defect occurred in the battery during warranty period.

12.           Complainant has alleged that the electric scooter in question started giving problem during the warranty period. In the mother of December, 2021, the battery was replaced by the OPs. But after replacement of the battery, the electric scooter was again started creating same problem. Complainant again visited the OPs and requested to rectify the defect but OPs failed to rectify the defect despite their bests efforts. To prove his version, complainant has placed on file copy of tax invoice dated 16.06.2021 Ex.C1 and copy of warranty card Ex.C2.

 13.          On the other hand, OP no.1 itself admitted that the battery of the electric scooter was replaced by the OPs firstly in the month of December, 2021 during warranty period. Complainant again contacted the OP no.1 in the month of September, 2022 and again explained the problem in his electric scooter. On 17.09.2022 electric scooter was inspected and checked and it is found that the battery is not functioning properly and matter was reported to the OP no.2 who directed OP no.1 to send the battery for rectification of the defect/replacement. Thus, in view of the above, it is well proved that the battery of the electric scooter is not working properly and same became defected within warranty period. To substantiate the evidence produced by the complainant and plea taken by the OP no.1, OP no.2 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Hence, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus , the act of the OP no.2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

14.           Complainant has claimed to replace the defective electric vehicle in question but there is defect in the battery of electric vehicle. Hence, complainant is entitled for replacement of the battery of the vehicle alongwith compensation for mental pain, agony and harassment and towards the litigation expenses.

15.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 to replace the battery of the vehicle to the complainant. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and towards the litigation expense. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:02.01.2024     

                                                                  President,

                                                       District Consumer Disputes

                                                       Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                     Member                        Member