Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/199/2023

RUCHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S CEEON INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

SUNIL K CHAUDHARY

22 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/199/2023
Date of Institution	:	17/04/2023
Date of Decision	:	22/12/2023

 

Ruchi, aged 37 years, D/o Sh. August Muni, R/o H.No.3036-B, Sector 52 (LIG Flats), U.T., Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. M/s Ceeon India, Corporate office: Sec.63, E-88, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Noida, UP-201301 through its MD.
2. Kranti Autos, Shop No.3, Near Wedlock Manor, Chandigarh-Ambala Highway, Zirakpur, Distt. SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-140603 through its Proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Sunil K.Chaudhary, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	OP No.1 ex-parte.
	:	None for OP No.2.

 

Per Surjeet kaur, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant had purchased Ceeon Electric Bike, from OP No.2 for Rs.65,000/- dated 30.10.2022 (Annexure C-1). Thereafter, on 19.11.2022, the complainant used the charging point/socket to charge Apple iPhone and connected the same with charging point in product in question then it shorts immediately and phone shut down and burning smell came out, thereafter, iPhone did not start and charger cable also burn down due to heavy electric supply in charging socket due to wrong wiring. Then complainant immediately informed OP No.2 through phone and lodged complaint before it against the defect in product on the same day (Annexure C-2). The Engineers of OP No.2 visited the spot and found wrong wiring in product delivered to complainant and their phone also got burnt while checking the fault and they rectified the charging socket wiring and OP No.2 informed to OP No.1 about the fault and loss caused to complainant due to fault/wrong wiring. The complainant visited to the mobile repair store for repair and refunctioning of iPhone. On checking of iPhone, they found it totally damaged and stated that iPhone is not repairable (Annexure C-3).  The complainant lodged complaint and claimed for damages caused due to delivery of defective product before the OPs on 20.11.2022 through email (Annexure C-4). The OP No.1 refused to pay compensation to the complaint dated 24.11.2022 (Annexure C-6). The complainant sent a legal notice to the OPs (Annexure C-7). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OP No.1 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply and stated that all the stock of the model held in our as well as in the dealer premises was checked by Plant Head with his team but not a single scooter had been found with any type of fault. The pre-delivery inspection of the E-Scooter has been done vide our checklist No.399 dated 22.10.2022. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.1. However, none has turned up on behalf of OP No.1. Evidence on behalf of OP No.1 not filed. Whereas, OP No.1 was accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 21.08.2023.
3.     OP No.2 contested the consumer complaint, filed its written reply-cum-affidavit and stated that we reached at the residence of the complainant with her helper and explained us the complete episode. Thereafter, we also tried charging our own mobile on same socket and immediately our phone also started burning & smelling. After that opened and checked the vehicle with the help of company engineer through telephonic and video call, we found that all happened due to wrong wiring from manufacturer side also video was captured by vehicle owner and her family members. After that we immediately called Mr.Sham Saini (sales team) they contacted Mr. Karan Singh and also shared video clip to them. It is further stated that on 24.11.2022 OP no.2 received a mail from Plant Head of Ceeon India by mentioning that everything was OK from their side also they replied to OP No.2 that they are not liable to pay any compensation. On these lines, the case is sought to be defended by OP No.2.  
4.     No rejoinder filed by the complainant.
5.     Complainant and OP No.2 led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.   
6.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record of the case.
7.     The sole grouse of the complainant through present complaint is that he purchased one electric bike manufactured by OP No.1 through dealer from OP No.2 on 30.10.2022, as per bill Annexure C-1, at the cost of Rs.65,000/-. After only few days of use of the bike, when the complainant used the charging socket in the scooter, her iPhone got damaged. Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
8.     The OP No.1 on 09.06.2023 filed reply in the shape of letter. Thereafter, various opportunities were given to it for filing evidence, but no evidence was filed. Resultantly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 21.08.2023.
9.     The stand taken by OP No.2 the dealer is that when it was got inspected by the engineer of OP No.1, it was found that burning of the phone happened due to wrong wiring from manufacturing side. Even video clip of the inspection was shared with the OP No.1. As per OP No.2, it was assured by OP No.1 that the matter will be discussed and then it will revert back. But later on a call was received from OP No.1 that there is no fault and   hence the manufacturer has no liability for any compensation.
10.     After going through the evidence on record, it is abundantly clear that some investigation was conducted but no investigation report has been annexed by them. OP No.2 has filed an affidavit that engineer of OP No.1 only concluded regarding the wrong wiring in the electric bike in question. We are of the considered opinion, that after purchase of few days the complainant faced a major problem of burning of charging socket of scooter in question hence it was bounded duties of OPs to get the investigation done thoroughly for the safety of the complainant and his family members in future. But there is no such like step taken by the OPs. Hence, the act of OPs for non-providing after sale services proves deficiency in services on their part and their indulgence in unfair trade practice.      
11.     In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. to pay an amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her.
2. to pay ₹5,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

12.     This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
13.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
14.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

			Sd/-
22/12/2023			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member