Delhi

North East

CC/74/2017

Subhash chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Garg Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2022

ORDER

+DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

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

 

Complaint Case No. 74/17

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

 

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Subhash Singh S/o Late Shri Prem Singh R/o:- H.No. 3/38 A, Gali No. 20A West Ghonda, North East Delhi-110053	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Garg Enterprises F2/538 Sunder Nagri Delhi-110093   Shri Shyam E-Rickshaw D-1053, Main Gamri Road Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053	Opposite Parties

 

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

01.03.2017 28.04.2022 30.05.2022

 

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant has purchased an e-rickshaw from Opposite Party No. 2 which is sub-dealer of Opposite Party No. 1 on 22.06.2016 on payment of Rs. 1,02,900/-. It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Parties had given an advertisement that e-rickshaw will run 90 to 100 km after 10 hours of charging. The said e-rickshaw used to run only 30 to 40 km after once charging the battery. It is also alleged by the Complainant that suspension fork of the e-rickshaw is also not proper. The Complainant had alleged that he had got done service of e-rickshaw done so many times from 10.10.2016 to 15.02.2017 but the problem persisted. It is also alleged by the Complainant that the service centre installed defective battery which used to run the e-rickshaw for two hour.  It is also alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Parties told him that the vibration of e-rickshaw was there due to the accident.
2. Complainant has prayed for issue direction to Opposite Parties to pay  Rs. 1,02,900/- for e-rickshaw cost along with Rs. 15,000/- which was taken by Opposite Parties. He has also claimed Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental, physical and financial harassment. He has also claimed Rs. 20,000/- as litigation charges. The Complainant had claimed Rs. 80,000/- on account of loss of business.
3. Complainant had attached copy of invoice dated 22.06.2016, copy of invoice dated 29.03.2016, copy of license, copy of Driver’s Badge and copy of RC.

Case of Opposite Party No. 1

4. Opposite Party No. 1 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 1 that the e-rickshaw was sold to Complainant by Opposite Party No. 2 which is sub-dealer of Opposite Party No. 1. Opposite Party No. 1 denied Complainant’s allegation that Opposite Party No. 1 gave any kind of advertisement as e-rickshaw will run 90-100 km after 10 hours of charging. Opposite Party No. 1 submitted that the said e-rickshaw was sold to Complainant on 21.03.2016 and the guarantee period of battery was 9 months and the guarantee period ended on 31.12.2016. It is stated that Opposite Party no. 1 is ready and willing for repairing the suspension fork of e-rickshaw of Complainant. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party No. 1 that body of e-rickshaw was vibrating due to accident of the said e-rickshaw.  

Case of Opposite Party No. 2

5. Opposite Party No. 2 contested the case and filed written statement. It is stated by the Opposite Party No. 2 that they had sold e-rickshaw to Complainant but Opposite Party No. 2 denied that it gave any kind of advertisement as e-rickshaw will run 90-100 km after charging the battery.  Opposite Party No. 2 submitted that the said e-rickshaw was sold to Complainant on 29.03.2016 and the guarantee period of battery was 9 months and the guarantee period ended on 31.12.2016. It is also submitted by the Opposite Party No. 2 that the service of e-rickshaw was done each time as per standard procedure and the e-rickshaw was running properly.  Opposite Party No. 2 denied that the Complainant had suffered a loss of Rs. 80,000/-. Opposite Party No. 2 stated that the Complainant had main grievance for battery and Complainant did not make the battery company as party to the case.  
6. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Parties wherein the Complainant has denied the assertion made in the written statement.

Evidence of the Complainant

7. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint. He has relied upon the documents i.e. copy of invoice dated 22.06.2016, copy of invoice dated 29.03.2016, copy of license, copy of Driver’s Badge and copy of RC.

Evidence of the Opposite Parties

8. In order to prove their case both the Opposite Parties have filed common affidavit of Shri Pramod Jindal & Shri Sunder Garg, Address: D-1057/4, Main Gamri Road, Bhajanpura, Delhi-110053.  In the said affidavit they have stated the case filed against them is false.

Arguments and Conclusion

9. We have heard the Complainant. We have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that when he purchased the e-rickshaw in question the Opposite Parties had given advertisement that the e-rickshaw would run 90 to 100 kms after charging the battery for 10 hours. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that they did not give any such advertisement. In order to show that the Opposite Parties had given such advertisement, the Complainant did not file any document or other proof to show that such advertisement given by the Opposite Parties.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has failed to show that the Opposite Parties had given an advertisement that the e-rickshaw would run 90 to 100 kms after charging the battery for 10 hours.
10.  The other grievance of the Complainant is that the suspension fork of the e-rickshaw is tilted. On the other hand, the case of the Opposite Parties is that this was so as e-rickshaw of the Complainant had met with some accident. However, the Opposite Parties did not lead any evidence or filed any documents to show that the e-rickshaw of the Complainant had met with some accident. Even in their affidavit the Opposite Parties did not state that the e-rickshaw of Complainant had met with some accident. Therefore, this defense raised by the Opposite Parties cannot be believed.
11.  In view of the above discussion, it is ordered that Opposite Parties shall carry out the necessary repair of the suspension fork of the e-rickshaw and regarding the vibration of the body of e-rickshaw within the 45 days of this order and Rs. 15,000/- are awarded to the Complainant on account of harassment and litigation charges along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of this order till the recovery of this amount. The Complainant has not led any evidence that he has suffered a loss of Rs. 80,000/- on account of defect in the e-rickshaw. The Complainant has not led cogent evidence in this regard. Therefor no compensation is granted to him on this account. Ordered accordingly.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President