Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/22/329

Ritika Jolly - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Avon cycle Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Ashok Kumar

14 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:  329 dated 23.08.2022.                                                       Date of decision: 14.03.2024. 

 

Ritika Jolly, aged about 21 years (Aadhar No.5679 8583 2587) D/o. Sh. Bhagat Bhushan Jolly, Resident of House no.96, Street No.L-2, G.T.B. Nagar, Lalheri Road, Khanna Kalan, Tehsil Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana. Pin code:141401. Mob. No.78885-36950.

                                                                                      ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Avon Cycle Limited, G.T, Road, Ludhiana, Distt. Ludhiana, Pin Code:141003 through its Managing Director           
2. Sood Electricals, Samrala Road, Khanna, Distt. Ludhiana, Pin Code 141401 through Authorized Signatory.                                                                                                                        …..Opposite parties 

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2020.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

SH. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Ashok Kumar Mago, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Mandeep Singh, Advocate.

For OP2.                        :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

 

1.                In brief, the facts of the case are that on 03.11.2021, the complainant purchased a Scooter Avon E-Star DX W/LI 60/20 Batteries vide invoice No.168 for Rs.78,901/- from OP2 manufactured by OP1. However, on the day of its purchase, the scooter stopped in way being defective and matter was reported to OP2 who kept the vehicle for 5 days and handed over the same  to the complainant after repair. The complainant stated that on 24.11.2021, the vehicle again stopped and matter was brought to the notice of OP2 who further kept the scooter and returned the same to the complainant after 10 days. In December 2021 again due to defect, the vehicle was given to OP2 and till then the vehicle is in possession of OP2. The complainant claimed to have suffered loss due to defective vehicle as the same is not in position to run on the road. The complainant requested OP2 to change the vehicle with new one but to no effect. Even the legal notice dated 20.01.2022 issued to the OPs failed to evoke any positive response. Hence this complaint whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OPs to replace the scooter with fresh one and also to pay damages of Rs.20,000/-.

2.                Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of OP2 despite service and as such, OP2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.11.2022.

3.                However, OP1 filed written statement and assailed the complaint by taking preliminary objections that on the ground of maintainability; lack of locus standi; the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands etc. OP1 stated that Avon E-Star scooter was purchased by the complainant from OP2. The scooter was received for repair in factory on 17.01.2022 and was sent back to dealer on 27.01.2022. The complainant through Emails was informed that the scooter is lying with dealer after satisfactory service/minor repair work on 27.01.2022 but he intentionally did not take the delivery of the vehicle. Even despite number of requests by OP1 and OP2, the complainant has not come forward to pick the vehicle from the premises of OP2 and intentionally threatening them to involve in some false litigation and has been demanding a new scooter. The complainant was informed that the scooter is in satisfactory roadworthy condition after minor repair work and is lying in premises of OP2 for its delivery to the complainant, but the complainant intentionally is not taking the delivery of the vehicle.

                   On merits, OP1 reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections and facts of the case. OP1 has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.      

4.                In evidence, the complainant tendered her affidavit as Ex. CA and reiterated her averments of the complaint. The complainant also placed on Ex. C1 copy of  invoice No.168 dated 03.11.2021 for Rs.78,901/-, Ex. C2 copy of pre delivery inspection check list dated 12.10.2021, Ex. C3 is the copy of certificate, Ex. C4 is the copy of legal notice dated 20.01.2022, Ex. C5 and Ex. C6 are postal receipts and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, the counsel for OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Manager of OP1 along with documents i.e. Ex. R1 is the copy of resolution, Ex. R2 is the copy of letter dated 20.09.2022 issued to the complainant, Ex. R3 is the copy of reminder dated 06.10.2022 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written statement along with affidavits and documents produced on record by both the parties.

7.                The complainant purchased Avon E-Star DX W/LI 60/20 Batteries (Grey) scooter from OP2 vide invoice No.168 dated 03.11.2021 Ex. C1 for a sum of Rs.78,901/-. Soon after the purchase of the scoter, it develops snag as it stopped while running on the very first day of its purchase. The vehicle was given to OP2 for rectifying the defects which was handed over to the complainant after keeping the vehicle for 5 days. On 24.11.2021, again the vehicle stopped and was brought to OP2, which he returned to the complainant after 10 days. Further in the month of December 2021 defect occurred in the vehicle and the same was given to OP2 for necessary repair and rectification and till then the vehicle is lying with OP2. However, OP1 in its written statement stated that the complainant through mails etc. was requested to take the delivery of the repaired vehicle but it is the complainant who did not come forward to take the delivery of her vehicle. However, the OPs have failed to produce any evidence in this regard except a letter dated 20.09.2022 Ex. R2 and reminder dated 06.10.2022 Ex. R3 to the complainant to take the delivery of her vehicle. This letter and reminder was issued by the OPs first time after issuance of legal notice dated 20.01.2022 of the complainant. OP1 has produced the said documents Ex. R2 and Ex. R3 to save its skin.

8.                It is apposite to mention that the vehicle in question is an e-bike and its smooth running is only possible if it is defect free and fully functional and operative. So the defect in the E-scooter is a manufacturing defect which the opposite parties failed to rectify. As such, the complainant was deprived of the full usage of E-scooter due to the act and conduct of the opposite parties. It would be most appropriate to examine the definition of ‘defect’ as enshrined in Section 2 (10) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 which is re-produced as under:-

“ ‘Defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product and the expression “defective” shall be construed accordingly.”

Thus, the E-scooter (Product) which do not confirm to the compulsory standards are liable to held ‘Defective’ under the Act. By selling the defective product to the complainant, the OPs are indulged in unfair trade practice as per Section 2(47) of the Consumer Protection Act defines ‘unfair trade practice’ which means trade practice for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, the relevant portion of clause (i) is as under:-       

“(i) making any statement, whether orally or in writing or by visible representation including by means of electronic record, which –

1. falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, composition, style or model.”     

 

From the above facts and circumstances, it appears that the OPs are guilty of  deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice by supplying a defective E-scooter to the complainant, which started developing snags from the very first day of its purchase. As such, in our considered view, it would be just and appropriate if the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of E-scooter of Rs.78,901/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order along with composite costs of Rs.10,000/-.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the price of E-scooter of Rs.78,901/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest @8% per annum from the date of order till date of actual payment. The opposite parties jointly and severally shall further pay a composite cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

 

(Monika Bhagat)                              (Sanjeev Batra)               Member                                         President  

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:14.03.2024.

Gobind Ram.