Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 714
Instituted on : 23.12.2019
Decided on : 29.04.2024.
Manoj Kumar son of Zile Singh, r/o VPO Kahnauar District Rohtak.
..............Complainant.
Vs.
- M/s VirenSpeedroPvt. Ltd., Okinawa Scooters, Opposite Nandal Petrol Pump, near Sagar Villa Hotel, Ground Floor, Sat Guru Building, Rohtak, through its Prop./Authorized person/Signatory.
- Okinawa AautotechPvt. Ltd. Plot no. E- 28, RIICO, Industrial area, Khushkhera, Tehsil TijaraDistt. Alwar (Rajasthan) through its Manager/ Prop. /Authorized person/Signatory.
……….opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh.Manjeet Sindhu, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.R.K.Suhag, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
TRIPTI PANNU MEMBER:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are thatrespondent no.1 is the retailer cum dealer of Okinawa Scooters in Rohtak city, respondent no.2 is manufacturer of the same. The complainant had purchased a new Okinawa Scooter from respondent no.1 vide bill/Invoice no.208RTK18-19 dt. 30.09.2018, and paid an amount of Rs.75,400/- for the same. But the said scooter has become defective during warranty period and the complainant made complaint in this regard to the respondent no.1 and the mechanic of respondent no.1 removed the defects timeto time. But now during warranty period, the said vehicle of the complainant become defective and complainant made complaint immediately on 17.09.2019 about defects to the respondent no.1 but the official of the respondent on inspecting the defective vehicle told the complainant that battery of said vehicle has been broken/buldge and demanded amount for changing thebattery, while the vehicle is under warranty. Respondent no.1 did not behave properly and also did not bother to remove the defects of defective scooter. Complainant also contacted to the respondent no.2 and complained about the defective vehicle but no fruitful response has been received till date. Complainant requested the respondents either to replace the same with new one or to return the amount paid by him, but to no effect. The act and conduct of the opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to replace the said vehicle with new one or to return the amount of Rs.75,400/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.55,000/- as litigation expenses to complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, noticeswere issued to the opposite parties. Opposite partiesin their reply has submitted that the opposite party No.2 has good market reputation for its range of products, both in domestic and international market for its exceptional customer support. Opposite party is leading manufacturer in Electric Two-Wheeler Segment and running its business through authorised dealerships.The above complaint is totally false, frivolous and vexatious and has been filled with malafide intention and for harassing the opposite party. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to dismiss in limine as it fails to establish any cause of action against the opposite party No.1. It is further submitted that opposite party takes extreme care in ensuring that the product completely meet the prescribed standard and specification before sale of vehicle. The opposite party has established large R & D center and all vehicles are tested as per CMVR rules. In fact, quality control tests are subjected even more stringent than those, which are statutory prescribed and hence, no cause of action lies against the opposite party in the present complaint.All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavits Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C14and closed his evidence on dated 25.04.2022. On the other hand, opposite parties failed to conclude their evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and evidence of opposite parties was closed by the order dated 20.02.2023 of this Commission.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. In this complaint respondent no.1 & 2 have not adduced any evidence. Only the written statement has been filed by the respondent on dated 17.11.2021. On the other hand, the complainant counsel placed on record various documents i.e. Ex.C1 to Ex.C14. As per complainant there is manufacturing defect in his vehicle and he complained regarding these defects to the respondent on dated 17.02.2019. To prove this fact complainant has placed on record 3 photographs of the scooter and also placed on record a ‘Rejection ClaimAward” dated 26.09.2019, as per which is it mentioned that : “The tyre sent by you under claim, as per following details has been carefully examined & we found that the product has failed due to One Sided Wear. The failure is not due to any manufacturing defect of the product & not covered under our warranty policy”. Perusal of letter Ex.C5 dated 26.06.2019 itself shows that the tyre was sent to the manufacturer and it was found that product has failed due to one sided wear. The clarification was also issued by the Satish Motors on dated 22.04.2022 which is as under : “We have received from Manoj Kumar vehicle no.HRAH/1322 Elec. Scooter’s OKINAWA two tyres of CEAT Co. PSEP74003218 & PSEP74052918, which were rejected by the CEAT Company due to non-manufacturing defect”. Complainant has further pleaded that there was no manufacturing defect in the tyre. In fact there was the manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. So there was one sided wear in the tyre. Moreover the complainant has also placed on record the service record of the vehicle Ex.C8 to Ex.C11 to prove the fact that he has timely serviced the vehicle from the service centre of the respondents but the defects could not be removed. Perusal of photographs of the vehicle shows that vehicle is rough and dusty and not in working condition.Perusal of job sheet dated 17.09.2019 annexed with the bill Ex.C13 shows that the 5 batteries broken/buldge. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and opposite party No.2 being the manufacturer is liable to refund the cost of vehicle to the complainant after deduction of depreciation amounting to Rs.6000/-. Perusal of the bill Ex.C13 dated 30.09.2018shows that the cost of the vehicle was Rs.75400/- and a subsidy amounting to Rs.9400/- was given. In this way total sale price of the vehicle comes to Rs.66000/-. Hence the opposite party no.2 is liable to pay the alleged amount after deducting the depreciation amount of Rs.6000/-to the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay the amount of Rs.60000/-(Rupees sixty thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 23.12.2019 till its realisation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as well as litigation expensesto 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:
29.04.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
TriptiPannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
