Delhi

West Delhi

CC/13/223

Ayodhya Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s High Energy Batteries ( India ) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Aug 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                            GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151 Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                     Date of institution:30.04.2013

Complaint Case. No. 223/2013                                  Date of order:26.08.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Ayodhya Prasad S/o late Sh. Khushi Ram R/o  Plot No. 88 Furniture Block, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.

.                                                                                   Complainant

 

VERSUS

1.        M/s  High  Energy  Batteries ( India ) Ltd. through its Director  Esvin  House PB No. 5068, Perumgudi, Chennai-600096 Tamil Nadu

                                                                                                            Opposite party no.1

2.        M/s Saera Electric Auto Pvt. Ltd. through  its Director  Manufacturers of  All kind of e-Rickshaws, D-44, First Floor,  Shiva Ji Market, Tagore Garden  Extension, New  Delhi -110027

                                                                                    Opposite party no.2

3.        Authorised Service Centre of  M/s High Energy Batteries (India) Ltd. through  its Proprietor  B-113, Phase-1, Nariana Industrial Area, New  Delhi

Opposite party no.3

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            ShriAyodhya Prasad  named above here in the complainant has filed the present consumer complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act  against  M/s  High Energy  Batteries (India) Ltd. and Others hereinafter  in short referred as the  opposite partiers  for directions to the opposite parties to replace batteries  or  to refund  Rs. 19,500/- cost of the batteries with interest @ 18%  from 20.09.2012 on Rs. 10,000/-  and on Rs. 70,700/- from 21.11.2012 till  realization  and issue  guaranty/warranty card for batteries, pay Rs. 25,000/-  for loss of business, pay Rs. 20,000/- towards  physical  and mental strain and agony and Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses.

             Brief facts of the complaint   as stated  are that the complainant  on 20.09.2012 booked one e-rickshaw Mayuri with the opposite party no. 2 on payment of booking amount of Rs. 10,000/-.  The opposite party no. 2 supplied e-rickshaw MayuriSl. No. S9KL-955-Blueto the complainant on 21.11.2012 on payment of total sale consideration of Rs. 54,000/-  vide cash memo  no. 708 dated 21.11.2012.   The opposite party no. 2 also supplied  four high energy batteries fitted  in the e-rickshaw for consideration of Rs. 19,500/- and a battery charger for consideration  of Rs. 3,500/- .  The opposite party no. 2 did not give receipt of Rs. 23,000/- received in cash  cost of four batteries and one battery charger. 

            That all the four batteries after two months abruptly stopped functioning .On  13.02.2011  he reported to the opposite parties and on advise of the  opposite party no. 2 the complainant  took the e-rickshaw  to the opposite party no. 3  on 14.02.2013  for checking of the batteries.  The batteries  were inspected by Sh. Rajiv. Who declared that all  four batteries are defective.  The batteries with guaranty/warranty cardwere kept by the opposite party no.3.  The opposite party no. 3 on 26.02.2013 replaced the batteries but did not return  theguaranty/warranty card .  The replaced batteries also stopped  functioning after two days only.   The complainant immediately reported to the opposite party  no. 3.  But the  opposite party no. 3 refused to entertain the complaint on the ground that guaranty/warranty  period  had expired. 

            That from 29.02.2013 to 31.03.2013 the complainant kept on requesting the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 eitherto repair or replace the batteries or return cost of the batteries.  But the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 did not pay any attention to the request of the complainant, therefore, on 01.04.2013 the complainant   sent a registered letter to the opposite party no. 1 requesting to replace the defective batteries.  But to no effect. Henceon 13.04.2013 the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties requesting for replacement of the batteries and pay compensation for loss of business and legal expenses.  But the opposite parties neither  replied the legal notice nor replaced the batteries and pay compensation. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to replace the batteries  or  to refund  Rs. 19,500/- cost of the batteries with interest @ 18%  from 20.09.2012 on Rs. 10,000/-  and on Rs. 70,700/- from 21.11.2012 till  realization  and issue  guaranty/warranty card for batteries , pay Rs. 25,000/-  for loss of business, pay Rs. 20,000/- towards  physical  and mental strain and agony and Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses.

            After notice  the  opposite parties no 1  and 3  appeared  and filed  joint reply while contesting  the complaint and raising preliminary  objections that the complaintis misconceived, false and frivolous  and has been filed just to harm and harass them. 

            However, on merits the opposite parties no. 1 and 3  deniedsale and replacement of the batteries.  They asserted that they  never sold  any battery to the complainant and  also did not repair or replace any battery.  The complainant  has filed a false and frivolous complaint just to harm  and harass them and  to extract money  and once again  prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            The opposite party no. 2 also filed separate reply while raising preliminary objections that the complaint is baseless, absolutely misconceived and the claim is vague and evasive.  The complaint has been filed just to harm, harassand malign the  opposite party no. 2 and  the complaint  may be dismissedwith cost.

            On merits the opposite party no. 2admitted  purchase of e-rickshaw by the complainant.  But asserted that they did not sell any battery or battery charger to the complainant, therefore, there is no question  of repair or replacement of the batteries by them.  All other allegations of the complaint are vehemently denied.

            The complainant filed rejoinders to the replies of the opposite parties controverting  stand of the opposite parties  and reiterating   his stand taken in the complaint and once again prayed for directions to the opposite parties.

            When  Sh. Ayodhya Prasad complainant was asked to lead evidence he tendered  in evidence his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint.  The complainant  also relied upon Annexure -1 invoice  dated 21.11.2012, Annexure-II  pamphlet of High Energy Battery(India ) Ltd., Annexure –III receipt dated  19.02.2013  change of  three batteries,  Annexure-4 notice  dated 01.04.2012,  Annexure -V postal receipt , Annexure -VI  legal notice  date 12.04.2013 and  Annexures-VII to IX postal receipts. 

            When the opposite parties were asked to lead  evidence, the opposite parties no. 1 and  3 filed affidavit of Sh.  Arunachalamnarrating  facts of their reply.  The opposite party no. 2 filed affidavit of NitinKapoorDirector narrating facts of their reply.

            The parties have also filed written arguments in support of their respective contentions.

             We have heard learned  counsel for  the parties  and have gone through material on record carefully and thoroughly.

The case of the complainant is that on 21.11.2012  he purchased  e-rikshawMayuri Sl. No. S9KL-955-Blue from the opposite party no 2 with  duly fitted  four  high energy  batteries.  The opposite party no. 2  gave invoice dated 21.11.2013 of the e-rickshaw.   But did not give invoice of the four batteries and one battery charger. The batteries stopped working  withintwo months from 21.11.2012. The opposite partyno. 1  replaced the defective batteries but the replaced  batteries  also stopped working within two days. Therefore,  there is unfair trade practice and deficiency  in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

Admittedly the complainant took  receipt  dated 21.11.2012  of Rs.  54,000 /- of purchase of the e-rickshaw.   Whereas  according to the complainant  cost of the four batteries  is Rs.19,500/- and one battery charger is Rs.3500/-. He did not take  receipt of payment  of Rs.19,500/- and Rs.35,00/-(Rs.23,000/-). This version of the complainant is not reliable  and trust worthy.  The person who took  receipt of Rs.54, 000/-  of cost of the e-rickshaw was also supposed to takereceipt  of Rs.23,000/- cost of the four batteries and one battery charger.  The version of the complainant  has been vehemently denied by the opposite parties. They have specifically pleaded that they did not sell any battery and battery charger to the complainant. Except affidavit of the complainant,  which is rebutted  by the affidavits  of the opposite parties,  there is no evidence  or proof of payment of Rs.19,500+Rs.35,00(Rs.23,000/-) by the complainant to the opposite party no. 2 as sale price of the batteries and battery charger. Therefore, the complainant  failed to prove purchase of four batteries and one battery charger from the opposite party no. 2, payment of Rs.23,000/- and  there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service  on the part of the opposite parties. 

Resultantly there is no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.

Order pronounced on :26.08.2017

 

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                               ( R.S.  BAGRI )

                         MEMBER                                                                        PRESIDENT