Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 412
Instituted on : 30.07.2021
Decided on : 01.09.2023
Dalbir (Age about 38 yrs.) Son of Sh. Rajender Resident of V.PO Ladhout Distt. Rohtak.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
M/s. Shivam Green,
- Kinetioc Green (authorized dealer) situated at Shiela bye pass Rohtak-124001 through its proprietor.
- Okaya power pvt. Limited, D-7, Udyog Nagar,Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041, through its director.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Sandeep Rana, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No. 1 & 2 exparte.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased a vehicle Auto rickshaw from the respondent no. 1 on 26-09-2019 and registered the same vide regn. No. HR-46E-7465 in his name. The above said vehicle is also financed by Manappuram Finance limited. Before selling of the said vehicle, the respondent No.1 and 2 has assured the complainant that the battery life of the above said vehicle as guaranteed for 3 years. But after 2 years from the date of purchasing of the vehicle, in January 2021 the battery of the said vehicle was started discharging automatically and the complainant went to respondent no. 1 for change the battery of the vehicle on 18.04.2021. After checking the battery, the respondent no.1 has taken back the same and gave the receipt and job sheet for changing into new one battery to the complainant and asked him for coming after three days. After three days the complainant visited the respondent no. 1 for the new battery but the respondent no. 1 sent back the complainant by saying that a few days later battery would be changed and again asked for time for another three days. Thereafter the complainant many time visited the respondent no. 1 for changing the battery of vehicle but every time the respondent No-1 averted the complainant. Due to non supply of battery, vehicle is not in running condition, so the complainant is facing many difficulties without plying the vehicle and not able to pay the loan installments. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illgal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties jointly and severally be directed to replace the battery of vehicle with new one of the above said vehicle and also prayed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees only) as mental harassment and Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees only) for physical discomfort and Rs. 45,000/- ( forty five thousand rupees only) for litigation charges to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.1 received back served but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. As such opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 16.03.2022 of this Commission. Notice sent to opposite party No.2 through registered post not received back either served or unserved. As such opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.11.2022 of this Commission.
3. Complainant in his exparte evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 20.07.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. The perusal of the document Ex.C2 shows that the vehicle was purchased on 26.09.2019 from the Shivam Green which is authorised Dealer of Kinetic Green i.e. opposite party no.1 alongwith warranty card Ex.C3 which shows that the battery contained the warranty of 36 months. As per the complainant’s version, after 2 years from the date of purchase of the vehicle in Jan 2021, the battery of the vehicle was started discharging automatically and the complainant went to the respondent No.1 for change of battery of the vehicle on 18.04.2021 but despite several visits of the complainant to the opposite party and several assurances given by the opposite party no.1, the battery in question has not been changed by the opposite party No.1 till date and asked him to come time and again to collect the same. As per Ex.C3 the battery of the said vehicle falls under warranty period of 36 months. It is the duty of the respondent no.1 to replace the same within the warranty period but the same has not been done either by the opposite party No.1 or the respondent no.2. As such opposite party No.1 & 2 failed to fulfill their version. It is also on record that opposite party no.1 & 2 did not appear before this Commission which shows that they have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties stands proved. Hence the opposite parties are liable to replace the battery in question and also to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to replace the battery in question with a new one of same price and also to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
01.09.2023
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
………………………………..
Vijender Singh, Member.
