Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 440.
Instituted on : 03.09.2019.
Decided on . 04.12.2019.
Deepak Kumar, aged 32 years son of Shri Krishan Dutt, resident of village and Post Office Titoli Pana-8, Tehsil & District Rohtak, Haryana.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- OKINWA SCOOTERS, Unit No.119, 1st Floor, JMD Megapolis, Sector-48, Sohna Road, Gurugram through its Manager-Danalal.
- Viren Speedro Pvt. Ltd., 2654/4 Jind Byepass Chowk, Rohtak-124001 through its Prop./Dealer Mr. Sumit Kumar.
- G-4 Harsha House, Karampura Commercial Complex, New Delhi-110015(Phone No.011-25920254/55/56) through its Dealer Mr. Nitin Kumar.
- Okinawa Scooters Haryana Dealer name Rohtash.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.
MS. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Opposite parties no.1 to 3 exparte.
Opposite party no.4 already given up.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant with the averments that he is an Armed Service person and had purchased Okinawa Electric Scooter from respondent no.2 on dated 24.07.2018 for Rs.39,500/- with one year warranty. At the time of purchase, it was told that that the average of scooter is 80-90 kilometers per charging and power of five batteries is 24-24 A.H. But after purchasing the same, complainant came to know that at first its average was 40-45 kilometers and after using the same for 4-5 months, its average was only 15-20 kilometers. It is further averred that the complainant contacted the opposite party no.2 and complaint the same. Thereafter, after one and half month, the battery was replaced on 21.08.2019, but when he used the scoter, he came to know that its average was only 5-6 kilometers. The complainant again contacted the opposite party no.2 and on checking it was found that the power of alleged batteries was 1-13.8 A.H., 2-6 A.H., 3-22.4 A.H., 4-15.8 A.H., 5-16.6 A.H., whereas, the actual power should be 24-24 A.H. Despite repeated complaints and visits of the complainant to the respondent no.2, the alleged batteries were not replaced by the opposite party no.2. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of scooter or to replace the scooter with new one having superior quality batteries and also to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party no.2 received back served and notice sent to opposite parties No.1 and 3 through registered post did not receive back either served or unserved and opposite parties No.1 to 3 failed to appear before the Forum. As such, opposite parties No.1 to 3 vide order dated 25.10.2019 of this Forum were proceeded against exparte. However, opposite party no.4 was given up by complainant, vide his separately recorded statement on dated 25.10.2019.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and has closed his evidence on dated 22.11.2019.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per copy receipt Ex.C1, complainant had purchased the Okinawa Electric Scooter from opposite party no.2 on 24.7.2018 for Rs.39,500/- and as per job sheet Ex.C3 dated 21.08.2019 battery in question was replaced but the problem could not be resolved. Thereafter there was problem in the average of batteries and as per job card Ex.C4, it was checked and found that the power of the 5 batteries of the scooter was 13.8 A.H., 6 A.H., 22.4 A.H., 15.8 A.H., 16.6 A.H. whereas the power of the batteries should be 24-24AH, which is also mentioned in the document Ex.C5, which shows that there is some manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question. It is also on record that opposite parties did not appear despite service and as such it is presumed that opposite parties have nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite parties regarding selling the defective vehicle stands proved. Hence the opposite parties are liable to refund the price of scooter in question.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 & 2 to refund the price of scooter in question i.e. Rs. 39500/-(Rupees thirty nine thousand five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.09.2019 till its realisation and shall also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the Scooter in question to the opposite parties at the time of receiving the amount.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
04.12.2019.
…………………………………..
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
…...........................................
Renu Chaudhary, Member.
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
