DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/96/2017
No. DF/ Central/
Imran Ali Ansari
S/o Ishrat Ansari
R/o - 187, Ramesh Park, Gali No. 8,
Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092 …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
1. Prop/Owner of Y.C. Electric Vehicle,
Plot No. 8, Chaukhandi, New Delhi – 110018
2. Giresh Arora
Prop/ Owner, Amba Auto Deals,
14, Chitra Gupta Road,
Paharganj, New Delhi – 110055 …..OPPOSITE PARTIES
Coram : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
Shri R.C. Meena, Member
ORDER
Mrs. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
- Imran Ali (in short the complainant) has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he approached the OPs for purchasing E – Rickshaw (Yatri) with Trontek Battery and on assurance of OP 2 the complainant purchased E-Rickshaw with Trontek Battery Model : Yatri chasis No. M 22YCEYD16H001649, Motor No. : YCM3686, Colour – red from OPs and all the formalities were completed by OP 2 and the registration of the same was
given to the complainant in the month of August 2016.It is further alleged that during the course of driving complainant found that the E-Rickshaw was not fitted with Trontek Battery and the battery belongs to another company.Complainant contacted OP 2 immediately asking him to remove the battery fitted in E-rickshaw and requested for fitting the battery of Trontek Company.OP 2 assured the complainant that he will fit Trontek battery.Complainant approached OP 2 several times for fitting / installing the Trontek battery and remove the earlier battery installed in the E – Rickshaw but of no avail. Legal notice was sent to the OPs by the complainant but not response was received.
Complainant prayed that OP 2 be directed to remove the battery and to fit the battery of Trontek Company, to pay Rs. 2 Lacs as damages for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 21000/- as litigation cost.
2. Notice was sent to both the OPs but nobody entered appearance despite service of notice.
3. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the documents placed on the record. Complainant has placed on the record the invoice of the E-Rickshaw as EX CW 1/1 in which in the column description of goods E-Rickshaw (Yatri) with the Trontek Battery is specifically mentioned. Complainant has placed on record the photocopies of the battery fitted in E-Rickshaw EX CW 1/3. Copy of the receipt of the amount paid by the complainant to OP 2 is also placed on record by the complainant as Ex CW 1/5.
4. On perusal of the documents it is revealed that complainant has made a payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- for E-Rickshaw (Yatri) to OP 2 on 23/08/2016 for purchasing the E-Rickshaw (Yatri) against invoice dated 29/08/2016. On perusal of the receipt issued by OP 2 dated 23/08/2016 it is revealed that the complainant has purchased the E-Rickshaw through OP 2 and relief sought by the complainant is only against OP 2.
As nobody is entered appearance on behalf of OPs and there is nothing on record to rebut the allegations of the complainant we have no option but to allow the complaint and direct the OP 2 to remove the battery which is already fitted in the E-Rickshaw in dispute and fit/install the battery of Trontek Company as is evident in the cash memo Ex CW 1/1 issued by the OP 1 and to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation as well as cost of litigation.
5. OP 2 is directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the above said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date of receipt of the order. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Announced this 22nd day of January 2020.
