Written arguments submitted by complainant.

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant against M/s Mahadev Enterprises, Maur Mandi and TNR E-Vehicles Industry, Industrial area, Delhi Road Meerut (UP) under Section 35 of the CPA 2019. The complainant has alleged that he has purchased one Turner vehicle black/orange on 27.7.2019 amounting to Rs. 52,000/- from OP No-1 having two years full warranty regarding the vehicle and one year full warranty of battery installed in the vehicle That after the three months of purchase of the vehicle its lights stopped functioning and after approaching OP No.1 it was got repaired. Thereafter, the lighting control system went out of order and the OP No No.1 repaired the same after taking a sum of Rs. 600/-. Thereafter the charger of the vehicle stopping working and the OP No.1 installed a new one in the vehicle after taking charges of Rs. 1200/-. Thereafter, the battery installed in the vehicle stopped functioning and inspite of numerous requests to the OP No.1, it failed to repair/replace the same. Feeling aggrieved by the non-functioning of the battery the complainant has approached the Commission with a prayer for issuance of a direction to the OPs to pay Rs.1800/- (as costs charged by OP No.1.) and Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental agony, physically and mental torture. 

Upon notice, the OPs appeared through his counsel. However, OP No.2 failed to file its written version within stipulated period, therefore, the defence of OP No.2 was struck off vide order dated 07.10.2020.

OP No.1 contended that the lighting control system of the vehicle went out of order and the same replaced without taking any cost of

the same from the complainant. However, the charger of the vehicle got fault due to the negligence of complainant himself because the battery used to be charged with a charger which meant for sprayer and not for the charging of the battery of the vehicle. The OP No.1 has charged only a sum of Rs. 1800/- and the same was charged by the complainant for the parts which did not carry any warranty. OP No.1 alleged that there is no fault of the battery and the same was in order. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

Parties led their respective evidence in the shape of affidavit and documents. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone the file carefully.

We are of the opinion that in electric vehicle, the battery is the main component which gives the energy to the engine to drive the vehicle but if the same develops any fault and is not in working upto the mark as  assured by the company then the said vehicle is of no use. Thus we are of the opinion that the OP No.2 which has manufactured the vehicle has not been manufacturing the battery of a good standard so that the same may last long without any trouble to the vehicle/driver. So, the OP No.2 is a deficient in rendering services to the complainant in providing the good product. Hence the complaint is allowed and the OP No.2 is directed to replace the battery of the vehicle without any charges. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of this order.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement. 

The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time limits due to heavy pendency of other cases.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.