Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/361

Sushil Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Prashant Pathak Adv.

05 Apr 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:361 dated 04.08.2021                                                Date of decision: 05.04.2022. 

 

Sushil Goyal son of Late Shri Rajinder Kumar, resident of House No.9, Royal Valley, Dhandra, Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                    ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

1. M/s. Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., K-265-66, Dhandari Kalan, Ludhiana-141010 through its Director/Managing Director.
2. M/s. India Autos, 14579, G.T. Road, Opp. Military Camp, Dholewal, Ludhiana through its Partner/Prop./Auth. Signatory.                                                                                                  …..Opposite parties

          Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act,               2019.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Complainant Sh. Sushil Goyal with Sh. G.N.                                              Dubey, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Exparte.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Optima HS 500 ER scooty from OP2 vide invoice No.121 dated 15.01.2020 for a sum of Rs.81,811/-. The scooty is manufactured by OP1. At the time of purchase, OP2 assured that the registration certificate would be provided to the complainant within one month and the charges for the same were also obtained by OP2. However, till date, OP2 has not provided the registration certificate to the complainant despite repeated requests and personal visits made by the complainant. In the absence of the registration certificate, the complainant was many times stopped and harassed by the police.

2.                It is further alleged that once the scooty was taken by the complainant to the showroom of OP2 for the service, but the vehicle was not returned after service and it was finally returned after a period of 1½ months. During the intervening period, the complainant had to make alternative arrangements of conveyance. Sometimes he had to hire the auto rickshaw or cab which used to cost him lot of money. Apart from that, the officials of OP2 without consent and knowledge of the complainant, changed the tyre of the scooty. In addition to this, during the time the vehicle remained at the premises of the OP for 1½ months, many scratches surfaced on the vehicle. Even after the service, the vehicle was not functioning properly and started causing unnecessary noise and would stop on the way resulting in harassment and humiliation to the complainant. Moreover, the officials of OP2 did not make any entry in the booklet. Thus, there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to replace the scooty with a new one and be further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and punitive damages of Rs.2,00,000/- and cost of litigation as Rs.20,000/-.

3.                Upon notice, the OPs did not appear despite service and were proceeded against exparte.

4.                In exparte evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit as ex. PA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the counsel for the complainant and have also gone through the record carefully.

6.                The grievance of the complainant in this case is that OP2 assured the complainant that the registration certificate of the vehicle would be provided to the complainant within one month and the charges were also obtained by OP2. However, the complaint is silent as to how much charges were paid by the complainant to OP2 in respect of the registration of the vehicle. The complainant has further not provided on record any receipt issued by OP2 regarding the registration certificate charges paid by the complainant. The complainant has placed on record only invoice Ex. C1 but there is no mention of receipt of any registration charges in the invoice Ex. C1. The complaint is further silent as to when the said charges were paid to the complainant. Therefore, it does not stand proved on record that OP2 received any charges for registration certificate of the vehicle. Therefore, this part of the claim made in the complaint has not been substantiated.  

7.                Secondly, the complainant has alleged that once the vehicle was sent to at the workshop of OP2 for service, OP2 did not return the vehicle to the complainant after service for a period of 1½ months. Even in this regard, the allegations made in the complaint are vague and uncertain. No date has been mentioned in the complaint as to when the vehicle was left with OP2 for the service nor the date when the vehicle was returned to the complainant after  service, has been disclosed. The complainant has further not placed on record any job card which is usually provided at the time of the service of the vehicle is conducted. Therefore, the allegations made in the complaint are not only vague and ambiguous but the same have also not been substantiated or corroborated by any supportive evidence.  

8.                Thirdly, the grievance of the complainant is that during the time scooty remained with OP2 for service, some scratches surfaced on the vehicle. In this regard also, no evidence has been led by the complainant. Even the photographs of the vehicle have not been placed on record to show any damage to the vehicle in terms of scratches. Moreover, the very fact that the vehicle was retained by OP2 for service for 1½ months has not been established on record as no job card or any other document has been placed on record by the complainant. Therefore, even this part of the claim cannot be said to have been established.   

9.                Fourthly, the complainant has claimed that there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle and the vehicle sometimes stops on the way and is also causing any unnecessary noises. However, these allegations are of general in nature and to prove these allegations, the complainant has not led any expert evidence to establish the so called manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence led by the complainant, it cannot be said that the vehicle had some manufacturing defect.

10.           As a result of the above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Sushil Goyal Vs M/s. Hero Electric Vehicles                            CC/21/361

Present:       Complainant Sh. Sushil Goyal with Sh. G.N. Dubey, Advocate.

                   OPs exparte.

 

                   The complainant along with his counsel closed evidence after tendering affidavit Ex. PA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C4.

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:05.04.2022.

Gobind Ram.