Tripura

West Tripura

CC/12/2016

Sri Mihir Kumar Sinha. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Maa Tara Automobiles. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

15 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA  :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 12 of 2016

Sri Mihir Kumar Sinha,
S/O- Late Ramani Kanta Sinha,
Bhati Abhoynagar, P.O. Agartala,
Agartala, West Tripura.        .….…...Complainant.

VERSUS

M/S Maa Tara Automobiles,
Rajababu Lane,
Colonel Chowmuhani,
Haradhan Sangha Club, Agartala,
Tripura West.            ...........Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant        : Complainant in person.
                      
For the O.Ps                 : Sri Hare Krishna Bhowmik,
                      Sri Amit Saha,
                      Advocates.
                     

        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  15.06.2016

J U D G M E N T 
        This case arises on the petition filed by Mihir Kumar Sinha against Maa Tara Automobiles. Petitioner purchased one Oreva E Bike along with battery accessories on 26.01.12. The capacity of the battery  is 16 AH as supplied by the O.P. But the recommended battery is to be 24 AH battery. O.P. misguided the petitioner. As such petitioner faced problem in running the bike. It was not functioning after few days. After repairing also it was not running properly. He requested the opposite party for supplying 24 AH battery. But it was not given. So, he filed this case for deficiency of service of the O.P.

2.        O.P. appeared filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that 16 AH battery and its guarantee period is for 6 months. Within the 6 months he made no complaint. Company using 18 AH battery of the bike of such model and accordingly it was sold out. There is no deficiency of service by the O.P.

3.        Petitioner appeared, filed the statement on affidavit, price of battery and cycle marked as Exhibit- 1 Series. Petitioner in the evidence stated that lower grade battery was given instead of  24 AH. 16 AH battery was given. In the late stage petitioner also produced company recommended battery information available from the net. In that net information company clearly recommended to use 24 AH capacity of battery. Higher or lower capacity may effect the battery life as stated. 

4.        O.P. on the other hand produced the warranty card of the E-rikshaw, E bike. Also examined one witness O.P. Nipu Chakraborty. It is stated that 16 AH battery given and it was not below grade and warranty was for 6 months. 

5.        On the basis of  all these evidence on record we shall now determine the following points.
         (I) Whether the O.P. did unfair trade practice by selling the battery 16 AH capacity instead of 24 AH?
         (II) Whether there was deficiency of service and petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

 6.        To determine the above points we shall evaluate the evidence given by the parties.
         
FINDINGS AND DECISIONS:

 7.        From the company paper it is evident that recommended battery was 24 AH. But admittedly the opposite party proprietor of Maa Tara Automobiles sold out 16 AH battery. The price of the battery is reflected in the voucher. Its value with charger was Rs.14,650/-. Purchased by the petitioner Mihir Kumar Sinha. This fact is admitted by the O.P. Complainant also informed Maa Tara Automobiles about the defect of the E bike several times. But the O.P. insisted that 18 AH battery was sufficient to run the bike. In the written statement again and again he insisted that 18 AH battery is being used by the company. Petitioner stated that he was not aware about the battery capacity required for running the E bike. It is true that the error battery 16 Ah had a warranty period of 6 months. The warranty card is produced and marked as Exhibit- A. But why the O.P. insisted for supplying 16 AH battery instead of 24 AH is not explained. When the company recommended 24 AH battery for the E bike, O.P. seller should have informed the purchaser about this fact. But it was suppressed and low grade battery of 16 AH was supplied. This is unfair trade practice in our view.

8.        The low grade battery was supplied so after 6 months the battery was not working and petitioner facing problems. The E bike was not running even after charging. O.P. agreed to arrange the charging. But this is not proper service. He has to supply the 24 AH battery to the petitioner. It is true that he is entitled to get the difference of the price of 16 AH and 24 AH battery price. But being seller he should supply 24 AH battery for the bike as recommended by the company. For the unfair trade practice and deficiency of service the petitioner suffered and he is entitled to get compensation. Two points are decided accordingly.

 9.        In view of the above findings over the two points this petition is partly allowed. We direct the O.P. to change the battery. Take back the 16 AH battery from the petitioner and supply 24 AH battery after taking the difference of the price. We also direct the O.P. proprietor of Maa Tara Automobiles to pay the petitioner compensation of Rs.15,000/- for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. The amount is to be paid within 2 months otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. The battery is to be changed and supplied within a period of one month, if not supplied without any cause O.P. is to pay the price of 16 AH battery amounting to Rs.15,000/-.    
 
     Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA