DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Complaint Case No : CC/122/2020

Date of Institution : 28.07.2020

Date of Decision : 25.01.2022

Jarnail Singh son of Sh. Mukhtiar Singh R/o Village Maur Nabha, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala. 

                           …Complainant

Versus

1. M/s A.K. Battery House, Shop No. 19, Near New Bus Stand, Barnala through its proprietor Mr. Ashu Garg son of Mr. Ramesh Kumar R/o Barnala Mb. No. 90597-12000).

2. Raftar Electric Green Vehicle Pvt. Ltd., Sirhind Chandigarh Highway, Sirhind through its authorized signatory (Email: raftaarelectricgreen@gmail.com);

           …Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. Preet Mohinder Singh Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. P.S. Kaushal Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.

Opposite party No. 2 exparte.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Jarnail Singh has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against M/s A.K. Battery House and others. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant purchased E-Bike Electrica (Scooter) having Chasis No. 201811295, Motor No. qs277163, Battery Serial No. 1537 to 1540, 1487 Colour White, from the opposite party No. 1 for an amount of Rs. 47,000/- vide invoice No. 513 dated 28.7.2019 and the opposite party No. 1 gave full guarantee of one year of the aforesaid E-Bike Electrica (Scooter) and apart from this the opposite party No. 1gave guarantee of 3 years on battery and 2 years guarantee on motor. The opposite party No. 1 also told the complainant that after the expiry of the said period of 2 and 3 years respectively a further warranty of 48 months will be commenced/started. It is further alleged that after the purchase of above said E-Bike, the complainant started using the same for earning his livelihood but after some days the above said E-Bike started giving problems i.e. self starting, charging, pedal assistance, motor sound etc., and in this regard the complainant visited the premises of the opposite party No. 1 and complaint about the above said problems of the E-Bike. On this the opposite party No. 1 told the complainant to park the E-Bike in his premises and assured the complainant that they will got checked the same from their mechanic and if there any kind of fault the same be rectified free of costs and the opposite party No. 1 also assured the complainant if any kind of part found defective then the same will be changed free of costs because the above said E-Bike is under guarantee. It if further alleged that after few days the opposite party No. 1 called the complainant at his shop and told him that there were some minor defects and same have been removed and now the E-Bike will working properly. On 15.3.2020 the above said E-Bike again started giving some other problems and the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 keep the above said E-Bike and stated that they will check the same and will intimate about it to the complainant. It is alleged that since 15.3.2020 the above said E-Bike Electrica (Scooter) is standing at the premises of the opposite party No. 1 and the complainant number of times visited the premises of opposite party No. 1 personally and also contacted the opposite party No. 1 time and again, but every time after making lame excuse putting of the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant also contacted the opposite party No. 2 to rectify the defects of the above said E-Bike, but the opposite party No. 2 flatly refused to hear the complainant and told that the opposite party No. 2 has got no concern with him. The said act of the opposite parties is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

i) The opposite parties may be directed to change the above said E- Bike Electrica (Scooter) with new one or return the price of E-Bike i.e. Rs. 47,000/- alongwith upto date interest @ 18 % from the date of its purchase till today.  

ii) To pay Rs. 80,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

iii) To pay Rs. 15,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3. Initially one Sh. Ashu Garg proprietor of opposite party No. 1 appeared in person on behalf of opposite party No. 1, but thereafter none appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.12.2020 of this Commission. Further, the opposite party No. 2 also served through E-mail on 21.10.2020 and as per office report no further message received. Therefore, the opposite party No. 2 was also proceeded against exparte vide order dated 14.12.2020 of this Commission. On 21.12.2020 Sh. P.S. Kaushal Advocate has filed an application for seeking permission to file written version and join the proceedings of the present complaint on behalf of opposite party No. 1 and the complainant filed the reply to said application on 1.2.2021. The above said application was allowed on 8.2.2021 to the extent that the opposite party No. 1 was allowed to join the proceedings at this stage and the case was fixed for 15.2.2021 for the evidence of complainant. The opposite party No. 1 had not filed written version as the opposite party No. 1 had joined the proceedings at the stage of evidence of complainant.   

4. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill Ex.C-2, copy of legal notice Ex.C-3, postal receipt Ex.C-4, copy of Email Ex.C-5 and on 26.4.2021 Ld. Counsel for complainant has closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. The opposite party No. 1 despite joining the proceedings had not produced any evidence. 

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the complainant. 

6. On the perusal of the complaint and evidence produced by the complainant, it is established that the complainant failed to prove his case. The complainant failed to produce any evidence regarding the guarantee of the alleged E-Bike Electrica (Scooter). The complainant has not submitted any warranty card. As per Ex.C-2 the complainant had purchased the said E-Bike Electrica (Scooter) on 28.7.2019 and the present complaint was filed on 28.7.2020 i.e. after one year of the purchase. The complainant has not produced any evidence regarding the complaints filed by the complainant before the Seller or Manufacturer. It is further perused that the complainant also failed to prove the manufacturing defect in the alleged E-Bike. The complainant has not produced any expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defect in the E-Bike. 

7. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case titled Pawan Kumar Versus M/s Nissan Motors India Private Limited bearing Revision Petition No. 2276 of 2017 decided on 3.1.2018 vide which the Hon'ble National Commission held that “Petitioner has failed to place on record any expert opinion regarding alleged manufacturing defect in his vehicle. Deficiency not proved.”

8. The Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi titled Sanjay Singh Versus Dabloo Bhagat bearing Revision Petition No. 2840 of 2016 decided on 11.5.2018 vide which the Hon'ble Commission held that “The complainant failed to place on record any technical/expert report to support his allegation that the tractor in question was defective.”

9. The Hon'ble Orissal State Commission, Cuttack titled HCL Limited and others Versus Orissa State Commission for Women and Another bearing CD Appeal No. 307 of 1998 decided on 27.5.2009 vide which the Hon'ble State Commission held that “Petitioners neither have procured experts opinion nor examined any experts to establish that the defects pointed out and repaired as per the said report cum history cards are due to inherent manufacturing defect of the Xerox machine. Order allowing complaint set aside.” In this way, the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

10. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and same is accordingly dismissed. However, no order as to costs or compensation. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        25th Day of January 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member