BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.      

                                                          Complaint No.: 84 of 2016.

                                                          Date of Institution: 29.4.2016.

                                                          Date of Order: 14.06.2019.

Jai Parkash son of Shri Chander Bhan, resident of 148, Ward No. 2, village Tigrana, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

                                                                             ….Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.       Rai Tele Services, Proprietor Shri Virender Singh and Vikash Rai CEEON India, Easy way E-RICKSHAW Head Office, near Paluwas Mor, opposite Sanjeet Filling Station, Rohtak Road, Bhiwani-127021 (Hr.).

2.       Marketing Head (MR Sunil Goel) CEEON India, Easy way E-RICKSHAW, Block-G, Plot – 1017, Narela, Delhi-110046.

3.       Manufacturer Head, CEEON India, Easy way E-RICKSHAW, Best way Agencies Pvt. Ltd. 1530-31, MIE part-B, Bahadurgarh, Hr.-124507.

4.       Branch Manager, Vijaya Bank, in front of Nehru Park, Bhiwani-127021.

…...Opposite Parties.

                             Complaint under Section 12 of the

 Consumer Protection, Act, 1986.

Before: -      Hon’ble Mr. Manjit Singh Naryal, President.

                   Hon’ble Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member.

                   Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Member.

Present:       Shri B. S. Saroha, Advocate for the complainant.

                   Shri R. K. Verma, Advocate for the OP No. 4.

OPs No. 1 to 3 already exparte.

ORDER:-

PER MANJIT SINGH NARYAL, PRESIDENT

                   Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has visited the showroom of the authorized dealer Ceeon India Ltd. on 4.11.2014 after seeing advertisement of the E-Rickshaw CEEON INDIA EASY Way E-Rickshaw published in News Paper Amar Ujala (Bhiwani city) dated 18.10.2015 and as per pamphlet distributed by the OP No. 1 and enquired about the passenger capacity and mileage of the E-Rickshaw after full charging.  It is alleged that apart from advertisement and pamphlet, Shri Virender Singh and Shri Vikash Rai, both authorized dealer verbally assured about the working capacity and charging capacity of the E-Rickshaw with guarantee of 3 years in case of any manufacturing defects.  It is further alleged that under assurance of dealer/OP No.1 the complainant paid Rs.28,500/- in cash in connection with registration, insurance and bank loan process charges of the E-Rickshaw, but OP No. 1 did not issue any receipt of this amount.  It is further alleged that the OP No. 3 assured that the remaining amount of E-Rickshaw will be paid/loaned by the Vijaya Bank, Bhiwani, as there is a written agreement/collaboration between OP No. 1 & 4 about the hypothecation of E-Rickshaw and complainant gave his consent to purchase the E-Rickshaw with hypothecation facility provided by the OP No. 3 & 4.  It is further alleged that the OP No. 1 has delivered one Ceeon India Easyway E-Rickshaw manufactured and marketed by the OP No. 1 & 3 and Cash memo/bill No.004 dated 30.11.2015 for Rs. 1,15,000/- including Vat indicating remarks about H.P.A. Vijaya Bank Bhiwani was issued by the OP No. 1 and likewise the OP No. 1 also issued a sale certificate dated 30.11.2015 and in addition to this initial certificate of compliance with pollution, standard, safety standards of components and road worthiness issued on 4.11.2015 under the seal of Bestway Agencies Pvt. Ltd.  It is further alleged that after one week use of E-Rickshaw, the complainant felt and observed that mileage/average of battery charging of E-Rickshaw is not as per advertisement and as per the assurance given by the OP No. 1, so he verbally complained about the same to OPs No. 1 and 4 and made it clear that it will be very much difficult for him to deposit/earn the monthly loan installment if the E-Rickshaw will not give mileage 100 to 110 kilometer after once its battery charging.  It is further alleged that the E-Rickshaw is giving mileage of 35 kilometers after charging its batteries once.  It is further alleged that OP No. 1 assured that the matter will be referred to OPs No. 1 and 3 and some competent Engineer will shortly visit showroom and your problem will be put up before the authorized technician/engineer of the OPs No.2 and 3.  It is further alleged that in addition to mileage deficiency, the complainant faced various defects also in the working and operation of the E-Rickshaw.  It is further alleged that complainant has visited the OP No.1 several times due to deficiency in overall/service of the E-Rickshaw.  It is further alleged that till today the OP No. 1 did not deliver to the complainant booklet of instruction of E-Rickshaw/ documents pertaining to insurance, registration and hypothecation of Vijaya Bank.  It is further alleged that the OPs have tried to repair the defects/working of E-Rickshaw, but all in vain. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  Hence, the present complaint.

2.                On notice, no one appeared on behalf of the OPs No. 1 to 3 despite service of notices and they were proceeded as exparte vide order dated 13.6.2016.

3.                On notice, OP No. 4 appeared and filed contested written statement denying all the allegations of the complainant.  It is alleged that the complainant has approached in the branch office of answering OP with a request to sanction loan of Rs.97,000/- for purchase of the E-Rickshaw manufactured by OP No. 3 and his request was acceded by the answering OP and loan of Rs.97,000/- was sanctioned to him for the purchase of E-Rickshaw from OP No. 1 and loan was to carry the interest @ 11.2% per annum with monthly rest, revised from time to time as per guidelines of RBI and the complainant had executed the loan agreement and the loan amount was to be repaid in monthly installments of Rs.4480/- each.  It is further alleged that in case of default of any single installment, complainant will be liable to pay penal interest.  It is further alleged that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and did not make the payment of even a single penny and the officials of the answering OP approached the complainant many times with regard to payment of defaulting amount, but to no effect and now a sum of Rs.1,00,864.09/- is outstanding towards the complainant upto 31.10.2016 and answering OP is entitled to get the same alongwith upto date interest.  It is further alleged that if the Forum reaches on the conclusion that there is any manufacturing defect in the E-Rickshaw and the OPs No. 1 & 3 are directed to refund the amount, the same may kindly be ordered to be paid to answering OP being financer of the E-Rickshaw.  It is further alleged that there is a hypothecation clause in the agreement executed by the complainant in favour of answering OP.  Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

4.                Ld. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record the documents Annexure C1 to C15 in his evidence to prove his version and close the evidence. 

5.                Ld. Counsel for OP No. 4 has placed on record documents Annexure R1 to Annexure R12 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and gone through the case file very carefully.

7.                After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves acceptance, as there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased one E-Rickshaw from OP No. 1 and got financed the same from OP No. 4.  The plea taken by the complainant is that the E-Rickshaw in question does not fulfill all the promises given by the OPs at the time of purchase, as the same runs only 35 Kilometers instead of 100 – 110 Kilometers after charging its batteries once.  This plea of the complainant is goes un-challenged and un-rebutted, because the OPs No. 1 to 3 have failed to appear before this Forum and were proceeded as exparte.  Complainant has placed on record so many documents in support of his case to show that the OPs have claimed that 100-110 Kilometers mileage shall be given by the E-Rickshaw in question.  The complainant is a poor person who uses to feed his family by running Rickshaw and for this purpose he has purchased the E-Rickshaw in question and got financed the same.  But the E-Rickshaw in question failed to fulfill all the promises made by the OPs and due to which the complainant has faced great financial losses on account of loss of income as well as on account of the penal interest to be charged by the Bank i.e. financer.  The OP No. 4 financer Bank appeared and filed its written statement with the request to pay the awarded amount, if any to it being financer.  The OP No. 4 has also placed on record copies of notices issued to the complainant for making payment of outstanding amount.  So, in our view the complainant has proved his case beyond doubt by placing on record cogent and convincing documentary evidence to prove this fact of giving less mileage by the E-Rickshaw in question.  On the other hand, the OPs No. 1 to 3 have failed to place on record any kind of evidence to prove that the E-Rickshaw gave mileage of 100-110 Kilometers after charging its batteries fully.  It is the primary duty of OPs to place on record such cogent and convincing evidence on record to rebut the stand taken by the complainant, but they have miserably failed in doing so.  Complainant has placed on record certain documents i.e. Annexure C1 to C15 and has successfully proved his case.

8.                From the above facts, it is clearly proved on record that OPs have failed to provide satisfactory services to the complainant i.e. providing 100-110 Kilometers mileage of E-Rickshaw, as claimed by them in various advertisements, for which they have charged the complainant and they are bound to keep their promise.  So, OPs have defeated the very purpose for which the complainant has purchased the E-Rickshaw in question.  Thus, there is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs and they cannot be allowed to run away from their responsibility.

9.                Moreover, the Agencies like OP No. 1 to 3 deliberately with malafide intention to mislead the poor public at large make such type of advertisement and then failed in keeping the same and harassed the poor consumers without any reason.  So in our view the complainant is also entitled for the compensation on account of mental and physical harassment & punitive damages for deficiency in service & mal trade practice on the part of the OPs No. 1 to 3.  Therefore, in view of the facts & circumstances mentioned above, complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and the OPs are directed as under:-

i.        The OPs No. 1 to 3 to pay Rs.55,000/- (Fifty five thousand only) in lump-sum as cost of E-Rickshaw together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till its realization.

iii.      The OPs No. 1 to 3 to pay Rs.7000/- (Seven thousand only) as litigation charges. 

iv.      The OP No. 4 is directed to charge simple interest from the complainant on the loan amount without any penalty.

v.       The OPs No. 1 to 3 are directed to pay the above amount awarded vide points No. 1 to 3 to OP No. 4 being financier towards settlement of loan account of the complainant, if not paid by the complainant.

          The compliance of the order shall be made within 30 days from the date of the order.  Certified copies of the order be sent to parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 14.06.2019.

(Saroj Bala Bohra)                   (Parmod Kumar)   (Manjit Singh Naryal)

Member.                         Member.                         President,

                                                                    District Consumer Disputes

Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.