Haryana

Ambala

CC/139/2023

JASPAL SINGH. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S J.P AUTOMOBILES. - Opp.Party(s)

ASHISH SHARMA.

05 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	139 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	10.04.2023
Date of decision	:	05.02.2024

Jaspal Singh son of Ajit Singh resident of village Alawalpur Tehsil Barara District Ambala.

          ……. Complainant.

Versus

M/S J.P. Automobiles, Dosarka Chowk, Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar (Near Krishna Furniture Emporium) through its proprietor/Authorized Signatory.

       ….….  Opposite Party.

Before:          Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

                      Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:       Sh.Ashish Sharma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     OP proceeded exparte vide order dated 09.06.2023.                                         

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant had filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) praying for issuance of following directions to it:-

1. To pay the amount Rs.68,200/- being price of the e- bike charged by the OP from the complainant alongwith upto date interest.
2. To pay the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as harassment, mental pain, agony being suffered by the complainant due to the supply of vehicle having manufacturing defects
3.  To pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that the OP is carrying on the business of sale of E-bikes at shop no. 5. Dosarkka-Sadhaura, District Yamuna Nagar in the name and style of M/s J.P. Automobiles. The complainant had purchased an E-bike from  OP  on 21.06.2021, model Optima E2 GRE bearing Chasis No. OS17EC2932 for a sum of Rs. 68,200/- and the price of the vehicle was paid to the OP by the complainant through cheque which has been duly encashed by OP against which invoice dated 21.6.2021 was issued in favour of the complainant. At the time of selling e-bike to complainant, the  OP  duly assured him that the E-Bike is of very good quality and there will be no problem in driving the same and charging the battery of the e-bike etc.  The OP has also given warranty of five years regarding the e-bike but not in writing. The OP also assured the complainant to give best services in case of any problem in the vehicle. Soon after the purchase of the vehicle, the same started creating problems and the battery of the vehicle is not charging through the specific point provided for the same in the vehicle. The complainant contacted the OP and told about the problem, but it started avoiding the complainant on one pretext or the other and advised him to charge the battery, directly through the point provided on the battery, after opening the seat cover. The procedure advised by the OP for charging of battery of e-bike is very much unusual and very difficult and is longer process for charging the battery i.e. the first of all the seat of e-bike has to be opened and the articles under the seat have to be taken out and thereafter it has to be plugged for charging the battery. This problem of the vehicle is since the day of its purchase and has not been removed by the OP despite repeated requests made by the complainant. Some other defects also occurred in the vehicle, which were got repaired by the OP within the warranty period.   Earlier the meter of e-bike fitted to show the charging of the battery was defective that it use to show charging of the battery wrongly and at various occasions it had shown the battery as fully charged but it was not so, as a result of which many times the battery of the bike was discharged even before reaching the destination and the complainant had to drag the vehicle for many kilometers for charging the battery, however later-on the said meter was changed by the OP. The complainant also made a complaint to the CM window in this regard but the same was filed on the ground that the matter does not belong to CM window and advised to approach to the appropriate forum. Thereafter the complainant got served a registered AD notice dated 7.6.2022 upon the  OP  calling upon it to take back its vehicle and refund the price of vehicle alongwith interest 18% per annum alongwith costs but to no avail.  Hence this complaint.
3.           Despite service, none put in appearance on behalf of the OP, as a result of which, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.06.2023
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-12 and closed the evidence on the behalf of complainant.
5.           We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file.
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by selling the defective vehicle in question, as its battery started giving troubles including other defects, within few days of its purchase, and thereafter neither rectifying the defects therein nor replacing the defective vehicle with a new one nor refunding the amount received against the said vehicle, the OP is deficient in providing service.
7.           The moot question which falls for consideration is, as to whether, the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not. It may be stated here that to prove his case, the complainant has placed on record copy of invoice dated 21.06.2021, Annexure C-1 to prove that he has purchased the vehicle in question from the OP. It is also evident from the document-Annexure C-6 that battery of the vehicle in question carried a warranty of three years. The plea of the complainant is that the battery of the vehicle in question was defective from the very beginning of its purchase and despite making all efforts, the OP failed to rectify the defective battery which shows that the vehicle in question is having inherent manufacturing defect. It is significant to mention here that, as stated above, notice of this complaint was sent to OP, seeking its version, yet, nobody appeared on its behalf, despite service,  as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 09.06.2023. The non-appearance of the OP shows that it has nothing to say in its defence against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions of the complainant went unrebutted & uncontroverted. Facing with this situation, it can easily be said that by not rectifying the defective battery of the vehicle in question, the OP has committed deficiency in providing service. However, the plea of the complainant that the vehicle in question is suffering from manufacturing defect, is not tenable, because he has failed to place on record any evidence to prove that the vehicle in question is suffering from any manufacturing defects, except faulty battery, therefore, this Commission cannot ignore the ratio of law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra [(2006) 4 SCC 644],  wherein it was held that, it is only if the manufacturing defect is established, replacement of the entire item or the replacement of the defective parts can be called for. Under these circumstances, this Commission cannot order refund of the amount paid, as prayed for. However, this Commission deem it fit if necessary directions are given to the OP to replace the defective battery or other defective part(s), if any, that will meet the ends of justice.
8.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby partly allow the complaint and direct the OP, in the following manner:-
   1. To replace the defective battery of the vehicle in question alongwith other defective part(s) if any, free of cost. 
   2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
   3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

The OP is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.  

          Announced:- 05.02.2024

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President