Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 330
Instituted on : 20.07.2018
Decided on : 04.10.2023
Ranbir age 38 years, son of Dalip Singh resident of H.No.1394 Ward No. 4, Nehru Colony, Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- Ms Ankush Auto Deals, Maharathi E Rickshaw, Plot No. 25-A, Ground Floor, KH No. 13/12 Kamruddin Nagar Extension, Nangloi, near Pole No.MDKF962 Delhi through its Incharge.
- Bhagwati E Motors, 1492, Sector-4, Extn., Rohtak through its Prop. Vikas.
- Laxmi E Rickshaw, MD Power Battery, H.No.64, Pocket-7, Sector-A/10, Narela Slum Area, New Delhi-110040 through its Manager.
…………...Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. R.S.Saini, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that on 19.10.2017, he purchased Maharathi Battery E Rickshaw type from opposite party no. 2 for a sum of Rs.95,000/- and additional amount of Rs.27,000/- was also paid by him for getting RC prepared, insurance and for other accessories. Opposite parties given one year warranty and stated that in case of any defect in any part of the vehicle, the part would be replaced. It is further submitted that at the time of purchasing said vehicle, it was assured by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 that once the batteries are fully charged, the vehicle will give the average of 90/100kms but when the complainant plied this vehicle on the road after fully charged, he found that the average was only 30/35kms. Thereafter complainant made a complaint regarding the said problem and one battery was changed and the opposite parties asked the complainant to ply the E-Rickshaw on the road for about 10 days and that if there would be any problem in this regard, all the batteries would be changed. Accordingly, he plied the E-Rickshaw on the road for a period of 10 days but the problem was not resolved and the average was again only 30/35kms. Then complainant again made a complainant but opposite parties did not pay any heed towards the genuine request of complainant. As such, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed either to replace all the batteries and to bring the E-Rickshaw in properly working condition or to refund the cost of the E-Rickshaw and other charges total amounting to Rs.1,22,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties appeared but they did not file any reply and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.03.2019 of this Commission.
3. Complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4, Ex.C4/A and Ex.C5 and failed to conclude his evidence. As such, evidence of complainant closed by court order on 31.01.2022.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In the present case as per the tax invoice Ex.C1, complainant had purchased a battery rickshaw from the opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs.95000/-. As per complainant, initially it was assured by the opposite party that when the battery will fully charged it will give average of 90-100 kms but when it was charged and plied on the road, it was found that average of the fully charged rickshaw was only 30-35 kms. To prove this fact the complainant has placed on record some documents. He made a complaint to the respondent no.2 and respondent no.2 given a report which is placed on record as Ex.C3. As per this report the manufacturer company told to the respondent no.2 that 125 Ampere battery of MD power gives average of 90-100 kms. in e-rickshaw when it is fully charged. It has been further submitted in this report that in fact the fully charged battery runs only 60-65 kms. Hence the configuration told by the seller to the complainant at the time of selling the produce was not found in the e-rickshaw. They sold the e-rickshaw after assuring that fully charged rickshaw runs for 90-100kms. But it was not found at par as per the assurance of opposite party No.1. On the other hand, opposite parties did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 13.03.2019 of this Commission which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant regarding giving less average in the e-rickshaw stands proved. Hence there is unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.30000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) as lump sum compensation and to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party no.1 shall also be liable to pay interest @9% p.a. on Rs.30000/-(Rupees thirty thousand only) from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.20.07.2018 to till its realization.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.10.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
