Haryana

Karnal

CC/653/2021

Sandeep Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Muskan Motors - Opp.Party(s)

Balkar Singh

26 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                      Complaint No. 653 of 2021

                                                      Date of instt.25.11.2021

                                                      Date of Decision:26.12.2023

 

Sandeep Kumar son of Sh. Charan Singh, resident of house no.1474, VPO Naru Kheri, Karnal.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Muskan Motors, 15/368, Jatton Gate, Karnal through its Proprietor Naresh Gupta, resident of house no.1537, Sector-7, Karnal.
2. P.R. Motors, Saha road, Ambala Cannt., through its Proprietor Rohit Saini.
3. Trontek group Maxi Electronics, B-228, Naraina, Industrial Area, Delhi-110028, through its Managing Director.
4. Okinawa Scooters Plot no.E-28 Riico, Industrial Area, Khushkhera (Alwar), Tehsil Tijara District Alwar, (Rajasthan) through its Managing Director.

…..Opposite Parties.

       

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before    Shri Jaswant Singh……President.

              Shri Vineet Kaushik…….Member

          

Argued by: Shri Balkar Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                  Shri Subhash Chander Gupta, counsel for OP No.1.

  OPs No.2 & 4 ex-parte VOD 07.07.2022.

  Shri Pankaj Singh, Senior Executive on behalf of   

  OP No.3.   

 

                  (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:     

 

                 The complainant has filed the present complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that complainant purchased an electric Scooter Ridge plus with battery worth Rs.74,308/- including all taxes from the OP No.1 and the said scooter is manufactured by OP No.4. By paying the consideration to the OP No.1, the complainant became the consumer of the OPs and is competent to file the present complaint. The said scooter runs with the battery installed in the same which was manufactured by OP No.3 carries two years warranty from the date of purchase of the scooter. The scooter was purchased by the complainant on 30.01.2019 and the battery of the scooter of the complainant went out of order and stopped functioning from 30.12.2020 and thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.1, however, the showroom of the OP No.1 was found permanently closed and the complainant somehow traced the residential address of the OP No.1 and told him about the non-functioning of the batter of his scooter, but the OP No.1 flately told the complainant that he has closed his business and now he is least concerned of his scooter. Thereafter the complainant approached the OP No.2 which is another authorized dealer of above said scooter and the complainant told him regarding the non-functioning of the battery of his scooter and then the OP No.2 informed the OP No.3 and OP No.4 regarding the non-functioning of above said battery through emails, but till today the needful has not been done by the OP No.3 and 4 and under the compelling circumstances the complainant had to purchase another new battery to run his scooter. Since the battery of the scooter of the complainant went out of order and became non-functional within the period of warranty and as such, the OPs were under a legal obligation to replace the same with new one, but till today no step has been taken by them in this regard, which establishes deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Hence, this complaint.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version, raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant is not suffering any kind of loss and injury due to any fault of OP No.1. Hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.3 appeared and submitted written version in the shape of letter wherein it has been mentioned that customer has purchased an Okinawa electric scooter with two years warranty of Okinawa Dealer. They came to know about this case after receiving the complaint from this Commission. The warranty of battery expired in January 2021 only. Still as an honest, reliable and customer friendly manufacturer, they are ready to test and repair the battery.

4.             Despite service of notice, none has appeared on behalf of OPs No.2 & 4. Therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 07.07.2022.

5.             It is pertinent to mention here that Shri Parkash Chand Sharma, Advocate, moved an application on behalf of OP No.4 for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 07.07.2022, which has been dismissed vide separate order of even date.  

6.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of delivery certificate Ex.C3, copy of estimate of battery Ex.C4, copy of courier receipt Ex.C5, copy of courier receipt Ex.C6, copy of mail Ex.C7, copy of another mail Ex.C8, copy of warranty certificate Ex.C9, copy of postal receipt Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 01.03.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Naresh Gupta Ex.OP1/A, and closed the evidence on 12.05.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

10.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that despite the battery in question under warranty, the OPs had not replaced the same and prolonged the matter on one pretext or the other despite repeated visits. Under the compelling circumstances, the complainant had to purchase new batter of his scooter and lastly prayed for for allowing the complaint.

11.           Per contra, authorised representative of OP No.3 submitted that the company is ready to replace the battery of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP as the company was not in the knowledge of fault in the batter of the scooter of the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, the complainant had purchased a scooter in question on 03.01.2019. It is also admitted that battery became out of order during warranty period.

14.           The complainant has alleged that despite repeated requests, the OPs did not replace the battery of the electric scooter.

15.           On the other hand, the representative of OP No.3, Shri Pankaj Singh, Senior Executive, has submitted that the complainant never approached to OP No.3 for his grievances. If the complainant approached the OP No.3 within warranty period, then the grievances of the complainant would be sought out. However, the company being a manufacturer of the battery, is ready to replace the battery in question.  

16.           Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that under the compelling circumstances, the complainant had already purchased new battery to run his vehicle and now he has no need to replace the battery and wants to refund the cost of the battery alongwith compensation on account of mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses.

17.           The company is ready to replace the battery of the vehicle in question. The complainant has not placed on file any record to ascertain that he had approached the company with regard to his grievances. Hence, in these circumstances, the complainant is entitled only for refund of cost of the battery of the vehicle in question.

18.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we partly allow the present complaint and direct the OP No.3 (being manufacturer) to refund the cost of the battery(s) of the vehicle in question.  Complainant is also directed to handover the old battery(s) to the OP No.3 directly or through OP No.2. The complaint qua OPs No.1, 2 & 4 stands dismissed. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

Dated: 26.12.2023

                                                                       

                                                          President,

                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                             Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 

(Vineet Kaushik)       

             Member              

 

 

Present:    Shri Balkar Singh, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Subhash Chander Gupta, counsel for OP No.1.

Shri Parkash Chand Sharma, counsel for OP No.4.      

OPs No.2 & 4 ex-parte VOD 07.07.2022.

Shri Pankaj Singh, Senior Executive on behalf of   

OP No.3.  

 

 

                Today the case is fixed for consideration on the application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 07.07.2022 and for permission to joining the proceedings at this stage, remaining arguments, if any, and for final order.

                Arguments on the application for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 07.07.2022 and for permission to joining the proceedings has been heard.

                Learned counsel for the applicant/OP No.3 argued that the summons of the present complaint were sent to the factory in Bhiwadi, Rajasthan that is only assembling plant but the legal team sitting in the registered office.  

                On the other hand, learned counsel for complainant argued that the present application has been filed at the fag end of the complaint i.e. at the stage of remaining arguments, only in order to delay the proceedings of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the application.

                Arguments heard. Record perused.

                As per section 40 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, this Commission shall have only the power to review any of the order passed by it, if there is an error apparent on the face of the record, either of its own motion or on an application made by any of the parties within thirty days of such order. The order vide which applicant/OP No.4 was proceeded exparte is of dated 07.07.2022 and present application has been filed by the applicant/OP No.4 on 22.12.2023, after the expiry of approximately one and half years. Thus, the present application has not been filed within stipulated period as prescribed U/s 40 of the C.P. Act, 2019. Moreover, there is no error in the order dated 07.07.2022. Thus, the present application is devoid of any merits and same deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed.

                Remaining arguments, heard. Order announced. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been allowed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Dated: 26.12.2023

 

                                                                         President

                                                                         DCDRC, Karnal.

 

Member(1)