Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/316/2021

Ibrahim - Complainant(s)

Versus

New Ayush Enterprises, - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Manoj Jangra

01 May 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                    Complaint No.       316 of 2021

                    Date of Institution:15.12.2021

                    Date of order:     :01.05.2024 

 

Ibrahim aged 66 year S/o Sh. Sadik, R/o Village Maharana, Tehsil & District Charkhi Dadri, Mobile No.9466339083

..Complainant.

                    VERSUS

New Ayush Enterprises, Meham Road, Bhiwani through Proprietor Sunil, Mobile No. 9215577107

                                ..Opposite parties. 

    COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Before- Hon’ble Sh. Manjit Singh Naryal, PRESIDENT.

Hon’ble Sh. Dharam Pal Rauhilla, MEMBER.

 

Present:Sh. Manoj Jangra, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Dinesh Bhardwaj, Adv. for OP

 

ORDER

1.        Ibrahim (hereinafter referred to as “the complainant”) has filed the present complaint against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “the OP”) with the averments that the complainant had purchased a Electric Scooty (Oreva) vide invoice no.1580 dated 31.01.2021 for a sum of Rs.41,000/- from OP,. After about 8 months from the date of purchase of the Electric Scooty, a problem occurred in the battery.  On complaint, the OP told the complainant to bring battery at shop in Bhiwani. On 17/18.11.2021, he took the battery to the OP, after which OP told that the battery is completely damaged and it is irrepairable. You have to buy new battery, on which you may get some concession. After this the complainant talked to the OP, during 30.11.2021 to 03.12.2021, on which the OP told the complainant that he would help the complainant. He can buy the battery from Dadri and send his whatsapp number and bank account number on his phone number to transfer the money. As per instructions of the OP, complainant purchased battery from J.S. Automobiles, Charkhi Dadri bill no.358 on 04.12.2021 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. When complainant contacted the OP to tell the price of battery and payment as told, he did not pick the phone and no amount was paid for the new battery purchased from Charkhi Dadri on the instructions of OP. It amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant has come to this Commission and filed the present complaint with the prayer to direct the OPs to pay Rs. 10,000/- alongwith interest and Rs.20,000/- compensation for mental pain, agony and physical harassment and litigation expenses Rs.11,000/-.Any other relief which the Hon’ble Commission deem fit and proper may also be granted.

2.      Upon notice, Sh. Sunil appeared and filed reply on behalf of OP wherein was submitted that he is not proprietor of New Ayush Enterprises, Bhiwani so the question of giving any assurance qua the said item/accessories does not arise at all. Sh. Sunil averred that the OP has not rendered any deficient services to the complainant. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief against OP and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.      The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 and evidence of the complainant was closed on 19.12.2022.

        Ex.C-2 is a bill No.358 dated 04.12.2021 for Rs. 10,000/- for four batteries purchased by the complainant from M/s J.S. Automobiles, reportedly on the advise of the OP. The said bill contains warranty clause read as “Seven month of  warranty” which denotes that the warranty for the battery is only for seven months.

        During arguments, counsel for the complainant placed on record document Mark A on 27.03.2024 i.e. affidavit of Shri Abbas Ali stating that he had purchased scooty from New Ayush Enterprises, Bhiwani through Shri Sunil Proprietor of the firm and he had taken Shri Ibrahim to the firm to purchase scooty. In the enquiry, it was stated that motor controller and battery has guarantee for a year and the same would be replaced in case of any problem.

4.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has tendered affidavit Ex.DW-1/A and document Ex.R1 evidence of the OP was closed on 07.11.2023.

        Ex.DW-1/A is a affidavit from Shri Raj Kumar, Proprietor of New Ayush Enterprises stating that the complainant was informed that this scooty is foreign made and assembled in India and its no part have any guarantee. Further, it has been stated that the scooty run smoothly for 8 months and the complainant never got the scooty serviced and that is why problem occurred. Hence OP is not responsible for the defect.

5.      We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

6.      In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the complainant had purchased Electric Scooty (Battery operated E-bike Oreva) in question from OP vide bill Ex.C1.  The complainant himself in his complaint has admitted that his battery became defective after 8 months from the date of its purchase.   It means the batteries  of E-bike worked smoothly for the period of 8 months. The complainant had purchased new batteries vide bill No. 358 dated 04.12.2021 (Ex.C2) with warranty for seven months. It may be assumed that warranty for the battery was only for seven months. Further the complainant has not submitted any warranty card for the warranty of battery.

7.      We have perused the entire evidence led by the complainant in support of his case but no report pertaining to malfunctioning/repairing of the battery from any technician made available on the case file.  There is also nothing on record which may go to prove that the battery was having defects which could not be removed. The complainant even has not placed on record the copy of warranty/guarantee card to prove its terms and conditions because as per the complainant himself, after about 8 months from the date of purchase of Electric Scooty (Battery Opearted E bike Oreva), there occurred a problem in the battery.  Meaning thereby, the Scooty (Ebike) had worked properly and without any complaint for a period of 8 months from 31.01.2021. Further the complainant has failed to place any expert opinion or any mechanical expert report to show that there is mechanical defect in the battery and the same could not be repaired. So, in the absence of any expert or technical report/opinion, no direction can be given to the OP.  The complainant has filed the present complaint and onus lies on the complainant to prove his case against the OP by leading cogent and convincing evidence which the complainant has failed to lead, which is found missing in this complaint. 

8.      Accordingly, we hold that the present complaint is devoid of any merit and the same deserves dismissal.

9.      With these observations and findings, the present complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.   This order be communicated to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record-room.