Delhi

West Delhi

CC/17/252

SUNIL KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

RELIANCE AUTOMOBILE - Opp.Party(s)

26 Aug 2019

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST).

150-151; COMMUNINTY CENTER ; C-BLOCK; JANAK PURI; NEW DELHI

CASE NO. 252/2017

Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain

C-232, Hari Nagar.

Clock Tower

New Delhi-110064                                              .…. Complainant

 

 

VERSUS

 

1. Reliance Automobiles

         D-6 &7 , Kiran Garden,

         Uttam Nagar,

         New Delhi- 110059

        Opp. Metro Pillar No. 715….Opposite Party No.1

 

 

2. Electrotherm( India) Limited

         ( Auto Division)

         72, Plodia( Via Thaltej),

          Ahmdaba-382115

 

O R D E R

 

K.S. MOHI, PRESIDENT

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.P under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Brief facts of the case are that complainant  is  that complainant had purchased  one set of batteries for  ‘Yo  bike’ on  08.05.2016  from OP-1 for a sum of Rs. 18,326/-.  At the time of sale of the dealer had assured of for one year warranty but the same was not written in the invoice when complainant approached the dealer regarding warranty he was told that the warranty was for a period of six months.  After some time the battery is developed some problem which were taken   to the OP but the dealer and manufacturer washed off their hands  stating  that warranty was only for six  months  and they did not replace  the same hence the present  case.

2.      Notice of this complaint was issued to OP.   OP-1 and OP-2 filed their reply cum affidavit stating that OP-2 is a leading manufacturer of battery operated vehicles.  The battery-set purchased by complainant has already exceeded the warranty period and further the batteries were not regularly serviced and complainant has not followed the owner’s manual.  It is further stated that battery set was purchased on 08.05.2016 from somewhere in April on 08.05.2016. The problem to battery was reported that is almost after 11 months.    The complainant remained completely negligent in maintaining the battery and also the warranty stood lapsed, therefore, the complainant has no case.  The complaint should be dismissed.   

3.     Complainant has filed his affidavit affirming the facts alleged in the complaint. He relied on  Revision Circular CC:CIR 2013:365,  Warranty Policy –Owner’s Manual Yo speed, Service Guidance-Owner’s Manual Yo Speed, Important  Aspects About Batteries –Owner’s Manual Yo Speed, Job card copy changing batteries &  other job.  On the other hand A/R of OP 1 & OP 2 stated that they have filed affidavit along with the reply and the same be read as evidence.

4.     We have heard the Counsel for complainant and perused the record.

5.     In the present case admittedly the set of batteries was  purchased by the complainant  on 08.05.2016  and  the problem in the batteries  occurred only in the month  of April, 2017 which means the complainant enjoyed the service of batteries for about 11 months .  If we consider that there was a warranty for one year ever then most of the period of warranty has been utilized by complainant and he did not report any trouble during these 11 months.  

6.     keeping in view the discussion stated above we are of the opinion that ends of justice would met if we award a sum of Rs. 2, 500/- to paid by OP within the 45 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which OP shall be liable to pay interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till actual realization.

Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.

File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced this___26th___ day of __ August ____ 2019.

 

 

 

( K.S. MOHI )                                                     (PUNEET LAMBA)                    

  PRESIDENT                                                              MEMBER