Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/94/2015

Raman Chhabra S/o Joginder Pal Chhabra - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Jai Tulsi Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Angrish Kumar

28 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM YAMUNA NAGAR JAGADHRI

                                                                      Complaint No.94 of 2015.

                                                                      Date of Institution: 18.03.2015.

                                                                      Date of Decision: 28.11.2017.

 

Raman Chhabra, age 42 years, son of Shri Joginder Pal Chhabra, resident of # near Sharma Tent House, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                             

                                                                                                     …Complainant.                                           

                                        Versus

1. M/s. Jai Tulsi Automobiles, near Sector-18, Gobindpuri Road, Jagadhri, through its proprietor Shri Surinder Kumar Jain.
2. Shri Surinder Kumar Jain, Proprietor, M/s. Jai Tulsi Automobiles, near Sector-18, Gobindpuri Road, Jagadhri.
3. Doon Scooter India, 122-M, Camp Selaqui, Dehradun (Uttrakhand). 

                                                                                           

                                                                                                    ..Respondents.    

Before:         SH. SATPAL …………….    PRESIDENT

                     SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, ………...MEMBER

 

Present:       Sh. Angrish Sharma, Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate, for respondents.No.1 & 2.

                    Respondent No.3 already exparte. 

 

ORDER   :  (SATPAL, PRESIDENT).

 

1.                 The complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the respondents (hereinafter the respondents shall be referred as OPs). 

2.                 Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that on 23.07.2014, the complainant contacted the Op No.2 being proprietor of Op No.1 firm for purchasing an electric scooter and the Op No.2 showed the complainant one DSI-Zoom Electric Scooter White Zoom Magic in colour and told the complainant that the said scooter has been purchased by him from its previous owner and the same is for sale.  It is alleged that the Op No.2 showed the complainant the booklet of the said electric scooter in which the date of purchase of said DSI-Zoom Electric Scooter was recorded as 12.12.2013 and thereafter, on 11.05.2014.  It is further alleged that believing upon the Op No.2, the complainant purchased the above-said scooter on 23.07.2014 with a new battery installed therein for a total sum of Rs.29,000/- i.e. Rs.18,000/- as cost of electric scooter and Rs.11,000/- as cost of new battery and the Op No.2 issued another warranty booklet regarding the battery providing six months warranty upon the battery from 23.07.2014 onwards.  It is further alleged that on 30.09.2014, the said electric scooter did not start and it was brought to the showroom of Op No.1 for removing the defects and Op No.2 assured the complainant that the only battery of the scooter which was under warranty was to be replaced.  It is further alleged that since 30.09.2014, the said electric scooter is standing in the showroom of Op No.1 but the defects have not been removed by the Ops.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to return the amount of Rs.29,000/- as cost of electric scooter and battery in question alongwith interest @ 14% p.a. and further to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5500/- as litigation charges.  Hence, this complaint.

3.            Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared, whereas Op No.3 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 07.08.2015 of this Forum.  Ops No.1 & 2 filed their joint written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; jurisdiction; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, it is denied that on 23.07.2014 the complainant contacted the Ops No.1 & 2 for purchase of electric scooter rather the complainant purchased only battery of DSI Zoom Electric Scooter which carries warranty of six months; that a week ago, the complainant visited with the Ops No.1 & 2 and asked that due to mishandling of the vehicle, the same is not working properly and after checking the same, it was revealed that the motor of electric scoter of complainant became defective and the same will be replaced/repaired which requires a sum of Rs.1200/- as charges which the complainant had to pay but the complainant instead of making the payment used filthy language with the Ops No.1 & 2 by stating that to get the vehicle repaired free of cost.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                 To prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit as Annexure CW/A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-7 and closed the evidence. 

5.                 On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 tendered in evidence affidavit as Annexure-R1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1/1 to Annexure-R1/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.No.1 & 2.   

6.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file minutely. 

7.                 According to the version of the complainant DSI-Zoom Electric Scooter was purchased by him on 23.7.2014 from OP No.2 who is a proprietor of OP No.1on his assurance that said electric scooter was in warranty period up to 12.12.2014 in respect of any defect in the scooter including the manufacturing defect.  Said electric scooter was purchased alongwith a new battery installed therein for a total consideration of Rs.29,000/- i.e. Rs.18,000/- as cost of the scooter and Rs.11,000/- cost of the battery.  Learned counsel for the complainant drew the attention of this Forum towards the photocopy of warranty booklet of the battery annexure C.6 and further towards the usual manual annexure C.7 which contains the details of the said scooter including the frame number motor number, battery number, date of purchase and the name of the first purchaser, second purchaser and the present complainant as third purchaser.  The learned counsel contended that the said annexure C.7 bears the signature of the OP No.2 which clearly proves beyond any doubt that the electric scooter in question was purchased by the complainant from the Ops.  Lastly, it was argued that the said vehicle was within warranty period till 12.12.2014 as per terms and conditions contained in annexure C.7 and that it was the duty of the Ops to repair the said scooter free of cost within the warranty period and that there is clear lapse on the part of the Ops, in view of the fact that the said scooter is lying in the custody of the Ops since 23.9.2014 and thus learned counsel prayed for the refund of Rs.29,000/- as cost of the scooter and battery along with Rs.20,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment etc.

                    On the other hand learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 contended that the scooter in question was not purchased by the complainant from them and that they have sold only the battery to the complainant in respect of which warranty booklet annexure C.6 was issued to the complainant.  Further it was argued that the said scooter was not within the warranty period as per terms and conditions contained in annexure C.7 since the terms of warranty was for one year from the date of delivery to the first owner and the complainant being the third owner is/was not entitled to claim the benefit of warranty period and thus no lapse can be attributed on the part of the Ops while delivering the services to the complainant in respect of the defective scooter in question. 

                    We have perused the user manual annexure C.7 which contains the detail of warranty limitations the frame number, motor number, including the name of the owners etc.  From its perusal it is evident beyond any doubt that scooter in question was purchased by the complainant from the Ops as it bears the signature of Op No.2 below the details of entry of second owner and as such the scooter in question was sold by the Ops to the complainant alongwith battery, so it was their duty to rectify the defects whatsoever occurred in the said electric scooter.  The contentions of the learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 2 that the warranty period was available only to the first owner and not to second and third owner has not been found tenable because the complainant has stepped into the shoes of the earlier owner of the scooter in question and the complainant is entitled to the same facility to which the first and second owner were entitled.  Moreover, the scooter is in the custody of the OP No.1 & 2 w.e.f. 25.11.2014 without any plausible and reasonable justification/explanation.  Even after the receipt of legal notice annexure C.1 from the complainant and further after the filing of the present complaint on 18.3.2015, the Ops were expected to take steps either to return the scooter in question after making the same roadworthy or to short out the matter after having mutual discussion with the complainant.  Rather the Ops without any justification kept silence about the issue involved and kept the scooter in their custody for the last  about 3 years and thus it is a clear cut case of negligent act on the part of Ops and their indulging in unfair trade practice.  Apart from above it would not be out of place to mention here that the complainant after making an investment of Rs.29,000/- on the purchase of scooter has been deprived of its benefit solely due to the act and conduct of the Ops. 

8.                 Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant with the following directions to the Ops:

(i).               To return the scooter to the complainant after making all necessary repairs in it so as to make it perfectly defect free and roadworthy or in the alternative to refund the amount of Rs.29000/- after deducting 10% of Rs.29,000/- on account of use of the scooter by the complainant for a period of two months i.e. Rs.29000/- less Rs.2900/-=26,100/-.

(ii)                  To pay Rs.3300/- as compensation on account of mental agony, harassment as well as litigation charges.

                    Order be complied within 45 days from the date of preparation of this order, failing which, the Ops shall pay interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

Announced in open Court:28.11.2017.                   

                                                                                (SATPAL)

                                                                                PRESIDENT.

 (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)         

            MEMBER.