DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 787/2016
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
SHIV JEE GUPTA,
S/o SH. AVDESH PRASAD GUPTA,
R/o N-28, C-222, WAZIRPUR INDL. AREA,
DELHI-110052. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. SH. RAJESH ARORA,
SUVIDHA CENTRE,STATE BANK COLONY,
GATE No-2,NEAR NANAK PYAU GURUDWARA,
G.T. KARNAL ROAD, DELHI-110009.
2. SPEEGO VEHICLES Co. PVT. LTD. (BRANCH),
No.26, BHAGWAN DASS NAGAR,
EAST PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI-110026. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM: SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 12.08.2016
Date of decision: 22.05.2020
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs underthe Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant bought an E-Rickshaw bearing Regn. No. DL-1ER- 9606, chassis no. M34SVCPLGGD000119, motor no. SVM000507 & controller no. SVC000526 vide Sales Invoice no.407 dated 21.03.2016 of Rs.1,15,000/- from OP-2 on installment for his
CC No. 787/2016 Page 1 of 7
livelihood only and the complainant paid Rs.35,000/- to OP-1 on 15.03.2016 and paid Rs.19,500/- on 20.03.2016 through cash and the receipt of the payment of Rs.19,500/- was not given to the complainant and the complainant was told to collect the receipt later on. The complainant further submitted that the complainant approached OP-1 for Sarthi Company (E-Rickshaw) but he was given the E-Rickshaw of Speego Company and the complainant was given a manufacturing defective E-Rickshaw which has not been working from the date of purchase of the said vehicle like battery problem i.e. not run more than 20 K.M., wiring problem, controller problem and motor problem and when the complainant went to OP-1 he was told to contact OP-2 on 22.03.2016. The complainant further alleged that the complainant till date spent Rs.20,000/- approx. for repairing as the complainant went several times to OP-2 for repairing but OP-2 could not repair the E-Rickshaw properly and the complainant was later on told to repair the E-Rickshaw on his own and the complainant was supplied with old battery as the battery did not work from the date of purchaseof the said vehicle and the complainant made a police complaint on 26.06.2016 to P.S. Model Town, Delhi. Thereafter, the complainant contacted OP-1 several times but it was of no avail and the E-Rickshaw is lying with OP-1 as he told the complainant that he will replace it with Sarthi Company and the complainant has paid 2 installments of Rs.5,850/- each on 08.04.2016 & 08.05.2016in the name of Puja
CC No. 787/2016 Page 2 of 7
Finance which was done by OP-1. The complainant further alleged that officials of Puja Finance and OP-1 i.e. Rajesh Arora are pressuring the complainant to pay the remaining installments despite of the fact that the vehicle is lying with OP-1 and further alleged that the complainant has suffered a loss and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the present complaint with a prayer to direct OPs to refund the amount of Rs.86,200/- alongwith interest and restrain OP-1 from taking installments as well as compensation for damages, harassment and mental agony and has also sought cost of litigation.
3. Earlier, OPs have been contesting the case and filed their separate written statement. In its written statement, OP-1 submitted that OP-1 i.e. Rajesh Arora is only the selling agent of Speego Vehicles Co. Pvt. Ltd. of OP-2 and the role of OP-1 is limited to take care of collecting/submitting/processing of documents of customers for OP-2 and the financer for the delivery of the E-Rickshaw manufactured/sold/ invoiced by OP-2 and financed by Pooja Finlease Ltd. and the financer released the finance cheque in favour of OP-2 directly after an agreement signed between the applicant and the said financer. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant bought the E-Rickshaw on 21.03.2016 and the complainant bought the E-Rickshaw from OP-2 and the complainant is repaying the finance amount back through EMIs by pre-signed advance cheques
CC No. 787/2016 Page 3 of 7
raised directly in favour of the financer. OP-1 further submitted that the E-Rickshaw was invoiced by OP-2 of Rs.1,15,000/- and the financer paid Rs.70,000/- on behalf of the complainant as financed amount through cheque directly in favour of OP-2 and against balance amount Rs.45,000/-, the complainant paid only Rs.44,000/- (Rs.5,000/- plus Rs.30,000/- plus Rs.9,000/-) and the complainant was allowed a cash discount of Rs.1,000/-. OP-1 further submitted that the complainant approached OP-1 for the E-Rickshaw of OP-2 and OP-1 is the selling agent of the E-Rickshaw manufactured by Speego Co. i.e. OP-2 and the complainant was delivered the E-Rickshaw manufactured/sold/invoiced by OP-2 and the delivery note was written and signed by the complainant in his own handwriting on 21.03.2016 and acknowledged the fact that he took the delivery of E-Rickshaw from Speego Co. and OP-1 further submitted that the E-Rickshaw delivered to the complainant was not having a manufacturing defect and the complainant took the delivery of E-Rickshaw on 21.03.2016 from OP-2 and he himself brought the E-Rickshaw to the authority for inspection and registration on 27.04.2016. OP-1 further submitted that he has no information about the police complaint on 26.06.2016 and was never questioned. OP-1 further submitted that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the written statement, OP-2 denied that the complainant was given a manufacturing defective E-Rickshaw which has not been
CC No. 787/2016 Page 4 of 7
working from the day of its purchase and the complainant leveled false and frivolous allegations as the E-Rickshaw was perfectly in the good running condition at the time of delivery and if the said E-Rickshaw has any defect from the day of its purchase, then how the complainant drove it to his home after the delivery and why did he not complained about the same at the time of delivery. OP-2 further denied the complainant has till date spent Rs.20,000/- approx. for repairing and OP-2 could not repair the E-Rickshaw properly and the complainant was later on told to repair the E-Rickshaw on its own.OP-2 further submitted that the complainant never approached OP-2 for repairing of the said E-Rickshaw. OP-2 further submitted that every E-Rickshaw is delivered with new battery with warrantee from the manufacturer of the battery and in case of any defect the manufacturer repairs the battery hence OP-2 is not liable to any complaint related to the battery. OP-2 further submitted that the case of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
5. The complainant filed separate rejoinders to the written statement of OPs and denied the contentions of OPs.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit and the complainant also filed written arguments. The complainant also filed copy of Certificate of Training in Driving of E-Rickshaw/E-Cart dated 21.03.2016 issued by Battery Rickshaw Sangh, Shahdara Chowk, Delhi, copy of Sales Invoice no.407 dated
CC No. 787/2016 Page 5 of 7
21.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- issued by OP-2, copy of complaint dated 26.06.2016 lodged by the complainant to P.S. Model Town, Delhi, copy of Learner’s License, copy of Fee receipt dated 15.12.2015 issued by Transport Department, copy of letter dated 28.04.2016 issued by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Authorization For Affixation of HSRP, copy of R.C., copy of insurance policy issued by Shriram Gene. Ins. Co. Ltd. and copy of his aadhar card.
7. On the other hand, OPs did not file any affidavit in evidence despite giving repeated opportunities and further none for OPs appeared on 12.10.2018, 28.01.2019, 20.02.2019 & 29.04.2019 and as such right to file evidence by OPs was closed vide order dated 29.04.2019.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. Moreover, it appears that OPs have no genuine defence in their favour as OPs have failed to prove any document in support of their case. The defective E-Rickshaw still lying with OP-1 which fact is not disputed and thus stands proved, as OP-1 has kept the E-Rickshaw with an assurance to replace the defective E-Rickshaw manufactured by OP-2 with E-Rickshaw of Sarthy Co. OP-1 has also failed to replace the E-Rickshaw of the complainant.Accordingly, in the light of above discussion both the OPsare held
CC No. 787/2016 Page 6 of 7
guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, both the OPs jointly or severally are directed as under:
i) To refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,15,000/- being the price of the E-Rickshaw on return of the original invoice.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant.
iii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,000/- which includes cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OPsjointly or severally to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OPs shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the dateof payment. If OPs fail to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 22ndday of May, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 787/2016 Page 7 of 7
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
