Bihar

Muzaffarpur

CC/90/2013

Srikant Thakur, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor, M/s Yoworld Chandralok Yo Bykes & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Ranjit Kumar

14 Jan 2016

ORDER

Order

           

            The complainant has filed this case of his claim on 08-07-2013 for  Rs.  81,200/-  including  the Rs. 41,000/- value of the vehicle at the interest of 12 %, Rs. 17,000/- for expenses incurred in heiring the vehicle, Rs. 15,000/- physical, mental harassment  as well as Rs. 8200/- as litigation cost and he has filed the separate  detail of statement of his claim which come at Rs. 86,120/-   

            The case of complainant appears from his complaint petition supported with an affidavit that he is a  Rtd. Engineer  and for convenience of her daughter  namely  Sweta to use  for her personal work as well as  to collect the pension  of the complainant  he has  contacted Proprietor/Manager of (YOWORLD) in his office near Chandralok Market Naya Tola on 28-10-2012. He was acknowledged the YOBIKES  by showing  with the specialty of the Bike  that the vehicle is moved about 90 to 95 Kmt  after  full charge by Electric, accordingly he purchased the said Bike on payment of  Rs. 41,000/- on 29-10-2012 through his cash memo no.- 245. He has further alleged that from 10  December to 15 December 2012 the vehicle was started problem in the away and he procured the problem after  expenses Rs. 678 and inform  the opposite party about  7 to 8 times after that his mechanic  came and detected the problem that the wire of fuse box became cut it will be  replaced but he started the vehicle  by connecting the wire. As such he suffered mental, harassment again on 13-12-2013 when he came  near medical college the vehicle became stopped and after investing Rs. 750/- anyhow the vehicle was reached at his house. Further he has invested Rs. 350 for cost of carrying charges of vehicle to the agency workshop where the mechanic detected the defect of Sancor and the vehicle was kept in agency and after repeated demand the vehicle was handedover to him on 14-03-2013,  as such he suffered the loss of absence of vehicle in said period by investing  Rs. 11,200/-. Again on 27-04-2013 he has provided  his vehicle to the agency for  third servicing when he came to take delivery after servicing on 29-04-2013 he was informed that the motor and censor both  were burnt and the much time required for its repair. He has contacted on phone as well as made  written complain  but his bike was not completed within  42 days as such he invested Rs. 4700/- for connivance. Further on 08-06-2013 he enquired his vehicle  and  requested to get examination that the said vehicle will run 90-95 Km. After fully charge or not . The mechanic of the agency examined and found the vehicle was moved only 59 Kmt after full charge as such he left his vehicle to the opposite party agency and he has claimed Rs. 15,000/- as damages and he has made written complain on dated 13-03-2013, 06-05-2013, 15-05-2013 and 22-062013 through registered post but was not heard accordingly he has filed  this case with aforesaid claim.

            The complainant has filed Xerox copy of specialty available in the said vehicle  find mentioned at one  page, retail invoice dated 29-10-2012 for Rs. 41,523/- acknowledgement  slip showing deliver date is  29-04-2013, letter no.- 55 dated 13-03-2013, 65  dated 06-05-2013, 67 dated 15-05-2013 and 77 dated 22-06-2013 issued by the complainant for removal of defect of Bike and if not  removed he will be forced to get his matter before Consumer Forum.

            In this case opposite party no.-2 has filed his  reply dated 19-11-2013 in affidavit form mentioning  therein that the contain of the complaint are not true and correct   which  he has  denied  and has submitted that he  is leading manufacturer  firm of battery operated vehicle and he is  taking  possible care for quality in respect of materials  and workmanship of the vehicle  which are tested in quality control department,  after that the vehicles are  supplied to its  various authorities dealer  for saling on road and inspected before pre delivery. He has admitted the purchased the vehicle  by the complainant  having no any manufacturing defect with his full understanding  with regard to the warranty terms and conditions. The vehicle was delivered and he has taken the delivery of vehicle after full satisfaction with performance of the vehicle. He has also given test ride at the time of purchase. The vehicle was battery operated. The complainant was full explained regarding the warranty of battery as also of the vehicle is up to one year and has annexed the warranty manual. He was also acknowledged the performance of battery operated vehicle depending upon so many factors and parameters which he has mentioned in detail in his reply. He has further alleged that there are  also key points  to improve the battery life mention in the  manual and explained in his reply in several  paras. He has further submitted that with regard to fuse and  failure of battery  sensor would occurs only because of putting up more lode  on the  vehicle and also not maintain the vehicle  properly. Despite this aspect said problem pointed out by the complainant was  rectified by the dealer and  breakdown door  step service were also provided by the dealer as a special case and has further explained that  it was observed the vehicle is in good condition despite that vehicle  was kept at  dealers place unnecessarily by the complainant  and its pertinent  to note that since last 4 month the opposite party has closed its operation earlier to that dealer, as well as service engineer  of the company requested the complainant time and again to take back the vehicle still however  the complainant did not corporate with the dealer as well as  service  engineer  of the company. The difficulties mentioned by the  complainant  are not correct and true he has not  produce any evidence much less expert evidence with regard to any manufacturing  defect as such relief cannot be granted and on the aforesaid ground he has prayed  to dismiss the case.

            The complainant has filed reply against  the reply of opposite party on 11-10-2014 and has alleged that when the vehicle was continuously not properly functioning under the guaranty  period as such he has left his vehicle  to the dealer he has no any problem regarding the battery only he has claimed the manufacturing   defect of the vehicle and no any other fact has been given by him axcept above.

            Considering the facts, circumstances, material available with the record, as well as allegation of the respective parties,  the purchase of vehicle  is admitted and has question raised by the opposite party only that the complainant  has not submitted  any expert evidence regarding the manufacturing  defect of the vehicle,  although the vehicle was in good  condition and kept  in the service centre and the complainant was requested time and again  to get delivery of his vehicle but he has ignored as such in our believe it is the duty of the complainant to first prove  the manufacturing defect, by  any expert evidence, which he has not done  he is also taking  plea  of manufacturing  defect in his complaint petition.  Only the problem and sensor and fuse box was arises which was letter on installed as per assurance of opposite party no.1. In this regard it is relevant  to say that the complainant himself  has kept his vehicle  at the service  centre which is in good condition as reported by the opposite party, as such it is desirable for the  complainant  to first take delivery and thereafter  come to the forum with a proof  of evidence  of manufacturing defect available  in the   vehicle by any expert which he has not  done.   How he is claiming for return of value of the vehicle,  it is beyond our believe as such no other claim is also found proved in under our believe. As such we are of the views that the complainant is unable to prove his case with cogent and consistent evidences and his case is not tenable.    

 Accordingly the case and the same is dismissed with cost.