Order dictated by:

Sh.Anoop Sharma,Presiding Member

1.       Balwinder  Singh, complainant has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  on the allegations  that on 10.1.2014 complainant had purchased one Electric Bike (Yo EXL) Chassis No. MBXL010LDX005511, Motor No. ETML481100013110015 for a sum of Rs. 58000/- vide Invoice No. 354 dated 10.1.2014 from opposite party No.1. At the time of purchase of the said Bike, opposite party No.1 gave guarantee of vehicle for one year of all parts including batteries. Opposite party No.2 is the manufacturer of the said Bike. At the time of purchase of the said bike, opposite party No.1 assured that they will provide best after sale service and also assured that if any defect will detect in this bike, the same shall be replaced  or they will replace the bike with new one. In the month of May, 2014 the battery of the said bike became defective as it become discharged within few minutes after its charge and it was impossible for the complainant to ply the said bike on road. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and brought the said defect to their knowledge. Opposite party No.1 after checking replied that the problem has come in the charger and the complainant has got purchased a new charger for a sum of Rs. 1500/- from opposite party No.1. But even then the said electric bike did not work. Thereafter the complainant again approached  opposite party No.1 in the month of June 2014 and requested them to repair the electric bike . On checking opposite party No.1 stated that the defect has come in the battery and the same would be replaced after receipt of the same from opposite party No.2. However, despite lapse of about long period, opposite party No.1 did not replace the battery and still the bike is in possession of opposite party No.1 which is still not in working condition. The complainant has requested many a times to opposite party No.1 to remove the defect from the bike, but to no avail and lastly flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant on the ground that the actual defect is in the motor of the electric bike and the same will be replaced or repaired by the company  and it will take some more time. Thereafter the complainant approached opposite party No.1 many a times , but to no avail. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

(a)     Opposite party No.1 be directed to repair /remove the defect from the electric bike of the complainant immediately without any further delay;

(b)     Opposite parties be directed to replace the electric bike of the complainant immediately  ;

(c )     Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- alongwith litigation expenses may also be awarded to the complainant .
Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that complainant had purchased Yo Exl vehicle on 10.1.2014 and at that time complainant was explained with regard to terms and conditions of the warranty. It was submitted that complainant is insisting for replacement of the vehicle which is not possible as per the terms of policy. Even in the manual, it is clearly mentioned that “this warranty is given only for the parts and not for the whole vehicle”. As per complainant’s version there was problem in the battery in May, 2014 and the complainant made complaints to this effect to the opposite party No.1 but there is no record of any such complaint . The complainant was negligent in maintaining the vehicle and has not even followed the proper service schedule, as such the complainant is not eligible to avail any benefit of his own wrong. Therefore it cannot be said that the defect in vehicle or battery is because of manufacturing fault . It was submitted that as per warranty terms and conditions, complainant has to avail free and paid services regularly. But in the present case, complainant has availed only first service  and after that no services were availed. It was further submitted that the charger was sent for replacement to opposite party No.2 but the said request for replacement was rejected as there is default on the part of complainant in following the service schedule and hence as per terms of warranty the replacement cannot be given. The complainant has not given any written complaint to opposite party No.2 as no job card has been made by opposite party No.1 to that effect . Even the complainant has not produced any evidence much less expert evidence with regard to any manufacturing  or other defect.  While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was made.

3.       However, opposite party No.1 made a statement adopting the written version filed by opposite party No.2. As such there is no need to reproduce the same .

4.       In his bid to prove the case complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of Invoice Ex.C-1, copy of warranty policy Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 27.8.2014 Ex.C-3, copy of form 22 Ex.C-4, affidavit of Sh.Karaj Singh Ex.CW2/A, affidavit of Sh. Gursahib Singh Ex.CW3/A and closed his evidence. However in additional evidence Sh.R.S.Bath,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence copy of Ist free service coupon Ex.C-5, copy of 2^nd free service coupon Ex.C-6, copy of 3^rd free service coupon Ex.C-7 and closed the additional evidence on behalf of the complainant.

5.       To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Sham Kumar, Executive of opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP2/1, copy of warranty policy Ex.OP2/2, copy of 2^nd free service coupon Ex.OP2/3  and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2. In rebuttal evidence Sh.Sham Kumar, Executive of opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.OP2/4, copy of blank service coupon Ex.OP2/5 and closed the rebuttal evidence on behalf of opposite party No.2.

6.       Initially Sh.Deepinder Singh, Adv. counsel for opposite party No.1 closed  the evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1. But later on filed an application for  additional evidence which was allowed and the complainant tendered into additional evidence affidavit of Sh.Onkar Singh Ex.OP1/1 and closed the additional evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1. However, in rebuttal evidence Sh.Deepinder Singh,Adv.counsel for opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence copy of service register Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3 and closed the rebuttal evidence on behalf of opposite party No.1.

7.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.

8.       Ld.counsel for the complainant has reiterated the facts narrated in the complaint and has submitted that on 10.1.2014 complainant had purchased one Electric Bike (Yo EXL) Chassis No. MBXL010LDX005511, Motor No. ETML481100013110015 for a sum of Rs. 58000/- vide Invoice No. 354 dated 10.1.2014 from opposite party No.1.  Copy of Invoice accounts for Ex.C-1 on record. It was the case of the complainant that at the time of purchase of the said bike, opposite party No.1 assured that they will provide best after sale service and also assured that if any defect will detect in this bike, the same shall be replaced  or they will replace the bike with new one. But, however in the month of May, 2014 the battery of the said bike became defective as it become discharged within few minutes after its charge and it was impossible for the complainant to ply the said bike on road. The complainant approached opposite party No.1 and brought the said defect to their knowledge. Opposite party No.1 after checking replied that the problem has come in the charger and the complainant has got purchased a new charger for a sum of Rs. 1500/- from opposite party No.1. But even then the said electric bike did not work. Thereafter the complainant again approached  opposite party No.1 in the month of June 2014 and requested them to repair the electric bike . On checking opposite party No.1 stated that the defect has come in the battery and the same would be replaced after receipt of the same from opposite party No.2. However, despite lapse of about long period, opposite party No.1 did not replace the battery and still the bike is in possession of opposite party No.1 which is still not in working condition. Thereafter the complainant has requested many a times to opposite party No.1 to remove the defect from the bike, but opposite party No.1 flatly refused to accept the genuine request of the complainant on the ground that the actual defect is in the motor of the electric bike and the same will be replaced or repaired by the company  . But till date no action has been taken by the opposite parties to remove the defect or to replace the bike of the complainant. Ld.counsel for the complainant contended that this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

9.       On the other hand  opposite party has repelled the aforesaid contentions of the complainant on the ground that  complainant is insisting for replacement of the vehicle which is not possible as per the terms of policy in which it was  clearly mentioned that “this warranty is given only for the parts and not for the whole vehicle”.  It was submitted that as per version of the complainant, there was problem in the battery in May, 2014 and the complainant made complaints to this effect to the opposite party No.1, but, however, there is no record of any such complaints made to opposite party No.1  . It was submitted that as per warranty terms and conditions, complainant has to avail free and paid services regularly. But in the present case, complainant has availed only first service  and after that no services were availed. It was further submitted that the charger was sent for replacement to opposite party No.2 but the said request for replacement was rejected as there is default on the part of complainant in following the service schedule and hence as per terms of warranty the replacement cannot be given. The complainant has not given any written complaint to opposite party No.2 as no job card has been made by opposite party No.1 to that effect .  The complainant has  also not produced any expert evidence to prove the manufacturing defect in the Electric bike, as such the complainant is not entitled to replacement of the electric bike. Ld.counsel for the opposite party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.     From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant purchased electric bike from opposite party No.1 on 10.1.2014 for a sum of Rs. 58000/-. The case of the complainant that in the month of May, 2014  defect occurred in the battery of the electric bike and the complainant brought this fact to the knowledge of the opposite party No.1 , who after checking replied that the problem has come in the charger and the complainant has purchased a new charger for a sum of Rs. 1500/- but even then the electric bike did not work . It was further the case of the complainant that in the month of June 2014  complainant again approached opposite party No.1 and requested to repair the abovesaid electric bike and on checking opposite party No.1 told that the defect has come in the battery and the same would be replaced after receipt the same from opposite party No.2. But again the complainant has not produced any evidence in the shape of job sheet that he time and again approached the opposite party No.1 for any problem in the electric bike. On the other hand opposite parties have submitted that the complainant has not produced on record any such complaint in the shape of job cards with regard to discharging of battery as the complainant has availed only first service and after that no services were availed , as such as per terms and conditions of warranty the replacement cannot be given. Even the complainant has not produced any expert evidence  with regard to manufacturing defect, as such no relief can be granted in favour of the complainant. But, however, the complainant has produced on record copy of bill No. 293 dated 27.8.2014 Ex.C-3 which shows that the complainant has got charged the battery from some Modern Electronics Service by spending Rs. 80/- . In this regard complainant has produced on record  affidavit of Gursahib Singh, Assistant Technician , Modern Electronic Service, who has stated on oath that on 27.8.2014 Balwinder  Singh, complainant took his Yo Exl E-Bike  to the service centre for the purpose of checking  and after checking , it  was found that there was a fault in the battery and the same should be changed because the fault of battery cannot be removed without changing the battery. On the other hand opposite parties have not produced any counter affidavit to rebut the aforesaid version given by Gursahib Singh, Assistant Technician , Modern Electronic Service. However, as per warranty policy, this warranty is given for the parts and not for the whole vehicle. It is also important to note that there are some important aspects about batteries that “whenever going to dealership for servicing or repairing of the vehicle, you have to ensure that the charging checked by dealer” . It is also  the condition that “visit dealer for battery servicing after two months. Dealer shall put battery on charge/discharge of machine.”.  But, however, the complainant has not produced any evidence in the shape of job sheet that he ever approached the dealer to get the charging checked by the dealer. Though the complainant has produced on record in additional evidence copy of Ist free service coupon dated 10.3.2014, copy of 2^nd free service coupon dated 10.5.2014 and copy of 3^rd free service coupon with illegible date , but these records do not show that complainant ever got recorded his complaint to opposite party No. 1 regarding defect in battery as all the columns of the coupon left blank. However, the stand of the  complainant that problem has come in the charger and he has purchased a new charger for a sum of Rs. 1500/- but even then the electric bike did not work , is not denied by the opposite party No.2 itself as in their written version, opposite party No.2 admitted that complainant was given charger on paid basis which was returned by the complainant later on and he was also given refund of that . However, the opposite party No.2 has not produced on record any receipt regarding return of the charger by the complainant and refund of the amount to the complainant. So it proves that the complainant approached the opposite parties for charging problem in the battery of the electric bike. Although  as per warranty policy, the warranty is given for the parts and not for the whole vehicle, as such electric bike of the complainant being within warranty period, the complainant is entitled to repair of the electric bike in dispute to the satisfaction at the end of opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 has been deficient in providing defective product to the complainant . The  complainant has not been able to prove his case against opposite party No.1 as no job sheet has been produced on record to prove that he ever lodged any complaint regarding defect in battery to opposite party No.1, as such opposite party No.1 is discharged from its liability . But, however,  the complainant has purchased the bike through opposite party No.1, as such it is the duty of opposite party No.1 to get repair the bike from opposite party No.2.

11.     Consequently, instant complaint is disposed of and opposite party No.1 is directed to get the repair of the electric bike in dispute done from opposite party No.2 to the satisfaction of the complainant without charging any amount within a period of one month of the receipt of copy of the order. The complainant is also awarded Rs. 2000/- as compensation besides cost of litigation are assessed at Rs. 1000/-. If compliance of the order is not made within the stipulated period, complainant is entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Forum. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.  Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Forum

Dated : 8.6.2017