Delhi

North East

CC/4/2018

Praveen Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Bhartiya E-Rickshaw Centre - Opp.Party(s)

19 Feb 2020

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 04/18

 

In the matter of:

 

	Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Charan Singh R/o House No. G-5/7  Gali No.3, G.S. Block 5th Pusta, Sonia Vihar Delhi-110094.	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	M/s Bhartiya E- Rickshaw Centre Main Shahdara Chowk, Near Hanuman Mandir, Delhi-110032.   City Sawera Trading Company A/14/90 village Ramgarh Jahangir Puri Delhi-110033.	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:      JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

08.01.2018 19.02.2020 19.02.2020

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts as culled out in the present complaint are that the complainant had booked City Life XV- 850 model Cherry Red Color  E-Rickshaw bearing registration No. DL5 ER 2696 from OP1 on 26.06.2017 on payment of booking amount of Rs. 5,000/- against total sale consideration amount of Rs. 1,19,000/-. The said E-Rickshaw was sold to the complainant by OP1 on 12.07.2017 vide invoice No. 012 issued by OP2 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,800/- inclusive of GST. However, the said rickshaw was taken on finance from Pooja Finlease Ltd, Finance Company and therefore hypothecated with it. However, after few months of its purchase, the battery of the said E-Rickshaw went dysfunctional resulting in less running time of E-Rickshaw due to frequent discharge of batteries. The complainant raised a grievance of the said issue with OP1 and only on the pressure from the aforementioned finance company or OP1, OP1 sent the said E-Rickshaw to OP2 for battery replacement and after much persuasion OP2 only changed two of its batteries however all four batteries went out of order within one month of their replacement. When the complainant went to OP2 again seeking replacement, OP1 refused to replace the batteries and instead handed over a rejection letter dated 03.01.2018 to the complainant and told him that the batteries in the E-Rickshaw were installed in March 2017 and therefore out of warranty but the complainant has submitted he had purchased it only in July 2017. Due to total cessation of functioning of the E-Rickshaw due to spoiled batteries, the said E-Rickshaw is lying unused and due to loss of income, the complainant is unable to pay the EMIs to the finance company. Therefore, when no resolution of his problem was given by either of the OPs, he was compelled to file the present complaint against OPs praying for issuance of directions against OPs to either replace with new batteries or in the alternate pay the price thereof i.e. 28,000/- alongwith Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- toward litigation cost.
2. Since the complaint was vague and badly drafted, complainant had prayed for directions to file the amended complaint according to which the complainant additionally submitted that when in December 2017, he had approached OP1 for complaint of malfunctioning of batteries, he was asked to go to OP3 which had asked complainant to produce the battery warranty card without which the batteries cannot be replaced  and after persuasion from OP1 on OP3 to replace the batteries on the basis of purchase invoice, the same were replaced by OP3 but the batteries did not last for more than 2-3 weeks. Therefore, when the complainant again visited OP3 on 05.01.2018 for battery replacement, OP3, on battery inspection told him that the two batteries out of four were already replaced in 03.03.2017 and since the E-Rickshaw was purchased on 12.07.2017, on this basis the batteries were ten months old and therefore out of warranty and cannot be replaced whereas two batteries were replaced in December 2017 when they were under warranty. OP3 handed over a manufacturing print out to the complainant in this regard but refused to give proof of replacement of two batteries made by it in December 2017. Complainant again went to OP1 informing it of whatever transpired between OP3 and him regarding manufacture date of batteries as March 2017 to which OP1 told the complainant that they can replace the batteries but not the brand new once to which complainant asked for replacement of two batteries and for the remaining to, he could bear the cost but OP1 refused. Therefore complainant has submitted that all OPs are shifting the blame game on each other.
3. Notice were issued to the OPs on 15.01.2018. None appeared on behalf of OP1 and OP2 despite service effected on 31.01.2018 and were therefore proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.09.2018. OP3 entered appearance through its Service Engineer on 21.03.2018.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant exhibiting the Loan documents pertaining to E-Rickshaw availed from Pooja Finlease Ltd, copy of police complaint dated 21.01.2018 lodged by complainant with P.S. Sonia Vihar, Delhi against finance company, photographs of batteries, copy of order booking form dated 26.06.2017, copy of invoice dated 12.07.2017, copy of insurance certificate issued by New India Insurance Ltd, photographs of E-Rickshaw and copy of invoice no. 153 dated 27.02.2018 issued by Goyal Trading company for four Amaron E-Rickshaw batteries purchased by the complaint for a sum of Rs. 25,800/- inclusive of GST.
5.  OP3 filed evidence vide which it submitted that the batteries in question bearing serial No. CDA5209R209226 and CDA5211R200330 were build by Amara Raja Batteries Ltd on 20.04.2017 to Dilli Electric Auto Private Ltd and as per warrant terms and conditions with Dilli Electric Auto Private Ltd the batteries have warranty of 6 months from date of installation and 8 months from date of supply whichever is earlier and therefore the battery warranty expired on 19.12.2017, it being 8 months from the billing date (April 2017) and this was the reason of refusal to replace the said batteries on 03.01.2018 when the complainant came to OP3 seeking replacement when the battery warranty period was over. OP3 has exhibited the invoice no. 1748200074 dated 20.04.2017 of purchase of battery by Dilli Electric Auto Private Ltd from Amara Raja highlighting the serial number of battery in question, copy of letter dated 01.04.2017 issued by Amara Raja to Dilli Electric Auto Private Ltd pertaining to battery warranty conditions valid on purchase after 01.04.2017 with condition for validation of the batteries in question and copy of rejection letter dated 03.01.2018 issued by OP3 to the complainant citing reasons 1 to 10 for non replacement of batteries as being out of warranty.
6. Complainant filed written arguments in response to the evidence filed the OP3 whereby he admitted that he has no objection to the explanation given by OP3 regarding date of manufacture of batteries and validity of its warranty of 6 months from installation and 8 months from manufacture. However, he has disputed the statement of OP3 that the warranty on the battery expired on 19.12.2017 on grounds that he had purchased E 0Richakw and therefore its warranty would have expired on 12.01.2018 and therefore on the date of complaint lodged by the complainant on 05.01.2018, the battery was still under warranty. The complainant urged that OP1 and OP2 have been misguiding and befooling the complainant and prayed for relief claimed.   
7. Written arguments was filed by OP3 whereby it urged that the complainant neither produced the warranty card nor battery invoice when they had replaced the batteries on 28.11.2017 only on the request of OP1 to consider his case on battery invoice basis and after the said replacement, the complainant visited OP3 on 03.01.2018 when the warranty had already expired in December 2017 and were therefore unable to provide any further replacement to the complainant. OP3 relied upon the purchase invoice of batteries as filed alongwith affidavit and cited several reasons for failure of batteries viz improper charging, installation, leakage of current, load imbalance, lights left switched on, loose belt of alternator and starter motor, willful abuse, idling of vehicle, additional / more accessories other then original equipment manufacturer (OEM). Therefore OP3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. During the course of oral arguments, complainant submitted that he has no grievance against OP3 since it was OP3 only which has apprised the complainant that the batter in his E-Rickshaw were manufactured in March 2017 and expiry of warranty in December 2017. Hence grievance is only against OP1 & OP2 who sold E-Rickshaw in question in July 2017 which had battery manufactured in March 2017 which went out of warranty within six months of purchase and therefore, were refused replacement of the same by OP1 and OP2 which in turn has asked the complainant to visit OP3. Therefore complainant had no objection to OP3 being deleted from array of parties. On specific query made by this Forum about the absence of warranty card / terms and conditions with respect to the battery, complainant submitted that he is not in possession of the same as was not given by OP1 and OP2 to him except purchase invoice.
9. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant as well as OP3. Both parties did not dispute that OP3 was willing to replace two put of four batteries and for remaining two batteries complainant had offered to bear the expense since the batteries were out of warranty after December 2017. However, as per the letter dated 01.04.2017 by Amara Raja to M/s Dilli Electric Auto Pvt Ltd, following were the conditions for validation of warranty for batteries purchased after 01.04.2017:

1. OEM bill to Dealer (mentioning of Battery serial number in the same)
2. Dealer bill to customer / sales bill (mentioning of battery serial number)
3. Filled warranty card with Dealer’s Stamp
4. Warranty card is mandatory to get warranty by end user.

 

10.  The complainant could not fulfill conditions 3 and 4 as aforementioned since he did not have duly filled warranty card with dealer stamp which was mandatory to get warranty by end user. The Hon'ble National Commission in Zenith Computer Ltd. Vs Kiran Desai (2006) 3 CPR 287 (NC) held that after period of warranty, it was for the complainant to procure the part from any source including the Petitioner (Zenith). Even if it is accepted that the Petitioner refused to sell toner, that could not come under the definition of ‘unfair trade practice’. The deal between these two parties comes to an end after the expiry period of warranty which in this case expired much earlier.
11.   The Hon'ble National Commission in the judgment of Sure Marketing Services v. Leo D’ Souza 1992 (II) CPJ 364 (NC) in a case in which the picture tube of TV had burnt out after the expiry of warranty period, reversed the orders of both district forum and State Commission which had allowed the complaint on grounds of orders suffering from material irregularity and held that usually in such cases a warranty card for usually is for one year. Further the Hon’ble National Commission in the judgment of Dina Nath Yadav v. Micronass Telecom Nokia authorized service centre III (2017) CPJ 61 (NC) upheld the observation of UP SCDRC that in cases where warranty period had expired, if the complainant wants to get his machine repaired, he supposed to make payment for repair regardless cost incurred thereon.
12.  In light of the failure on the part of the complainant to prove that the subject batteries were covered under warranty at the relevant time due to non- production of the warranty card to prove that the damage was within warranty period coupled with the documents placed on record by OP3 pertaining to battery purchase made on 20.04.2017 and letter dated 01.04.2018 clearly outlining the validation of warranty terms and conditions and also the legal discourse pertaining to the settled law in this regard as discussed above, we are not inclined to allow the present complaint as the same is devoid of merit since the OPs were under no obligation to replace the defective batteries of the subject E-Rickshaw in January 2018 free of cost since the same was already out of warranty in December 2017 and the absence / non production of duly stamped warranty card also has not helped matters in favour of the complainant and adverse inference is drawn against him for non-filing of the same.
13.  We therefore dismiss the present complaint as devoid of merit with no order as to cost as no deficiency of service or cause of action has arisen against the OPs in favour of the complainant.
14. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
15.   File be consigned to record room.
16.   Announced on 19.02.2020

 

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member