BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.              

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 27 of 2020.                                                                          

                                                            Date of Institution :    13.01.2020.

                                                          Date of Decision   :    13.08.2024.

M/s Kamboj Brothers through its sole proprietor Vijay Kumar son of Shri Har Kishan Lal, Shop No. 157, B-Block, New Grain Market, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.

                                ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

M/S Shri Kuber Autos Chautala Road, Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa.

...…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:       SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT                                  

                   SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.                                   

                   SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER

Present:       Sh. Amandeep Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. D.S. Smagh, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                   In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant had purchased an electric scooter from opposite party (herein after referred as OP) on 10.12.2018 for a sum of Rs.47,500/- vide bill no. 005 and the amount was paid by complainant through cheque dated 10.12.2018. The op had given two year guarantee of motor performance, one year guarantee of battery performance, six months guarantee of charger and one year guarantee of controller but said scooter is suffering from defects as its battery is defective and its performance is very low and motor is also defective and its performance is also very low. That complainant had reported the above matter to op several times but despite his repeated requests, the said defects were not removed by op due to which complainant suffered losses and he was forced to buy a new motor cycle. It is further averred that op has supplied scooter to the complainant which is having manufacturing defect and as such op has caused deficiency in service and unfair trade practice towards complainant due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon op on 20.11.2019 but op has avoided the service of legal notice. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the op to replace the defective scooter with new one and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and also to pay litigation expenses.

2.       On notice, op appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding non joinder of necessary parties, locus standi, estoppal, cause of action and limitation. It is submitted that said motor bike has been manufactured by Raftaar Electric Green Vehicles Private limited. In the booklet of said vehicle, Raftaar Electric Green Vehicles Private Limited has stipulated various warranties including a warranty period for motor as two years, for controller as one year and for battery as one year. No separate warranty period has been mentioned for the charger. The details of the warranty policies have also been mentioned in the said booklet issued by the aforesaid Manufacturer. The said warranties have been given by aforesaid manufacturer and not by answering op. The manufacturer has also mentioned as to how the said bike and its parts including battery charger are to be operated upon by the buyer. It is further submitted that no guarantee of any kind has been given either by answering op or by the manufacturer. The answering op never received any complaint from the complainant with regard to alleged defect in the battery or in the motor. Had the op been intimated about any such complaint, same would have been immediately sent to the manufacturer for doing the needful. It is further submitted that if there was some kind of defect then the same was to be fixed by the manufacturer as per the warranty mentioned in its booklet. The answering op had sold the said electric bike in the same condition in which it was received from the aforesaid manufacturer and it was/ is for the complainant to report the defect if any to the manufacturer who has given the warranty. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.       The complainant in evidence has tendered affidavit Ex. CW1/A and documents Ex. C1 to Ex.C11.

4.       On the other hand, op has tendered affidavit of Sh. Manish Monga as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2.

5.       We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.

6.       From the tax invoice dated 10.12.2018 Ex.C1, it is evident that on 10.12.2018 complainant purchased the scooter in question from op for a sum of Rs.47,500/-. The complainant has alleged defects in its battery and motor but however, he has not asserted that after purchase of said scooter on 10.12.2018 when the said defects developed in the scooter. The complainant purchased the said scooter on 10.12.2018 and has filed the present complaint on 13.01.2020 and there is nothing on file to prove the fact that within said period of more than one year, the complainant ever reported the said defects to the op. According to complainant himself, one year guarantee of battery was given and that one year had already elapsed on the date of filing of present complaint as complainant purchased the scooter on 10.12.2018 and present complaint was filed on 13.01.2020. The other guarantee i.e. of six months of charger and one year of controller, if any provided to the complainant has also already expired. The battery is main part in an electric scooter and since its warranty/ guarantee has already expired, therefore, it can easily be said that as battery of scooter became low after one year, the performance of the scooter has been lower down due to said reason of the battery and it cannot be said that there is defect in the scooter due to any other reason because complainant has failed to prove the same through any cogent and convincing evidence i.e. by placing any expert opinion/ mechanical report that there is any defect in the motor of the scooter. Further more, the manufacturer of the scooter which has provided warranties has also not been impleaded as a party in this case for the reason best known to him. So, for the reasons mentioned above, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

7.       In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced.                             Member      Member                President

Dt. 13.08.2024.                                                    District Consumer Disputes                                                                                  

                                                                             Redressal Commission, Sirsa.