Haryana

Kurukshetra

212/2018

Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

RNB Overseas - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Jan 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

Complaint Case No.212 of 2018.

Date of instt.:05.10.2018.

                                                                        Date of Decision:04.01.2019.

Vinod Kumar son of Sh. Sat Pal, resident of Village Amin, Tehsil Thanesar, Distt. Kurukshetra, mobile No.92159 41182 and 92159 41181.

                                                                ……….Complainant.                               Versus

1. RNB, OVERSEAS, 25 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COLONY, KUNJPURA ROAD, NEAR I.T.I. KARNAL GSTIN/UIN 06BAEPB4948R1Z9 STATE NAME HARYANA, CODE.06, M.NO.9215941182, 9215941181.
2. COMPANY MECHANIC GURMEET SINGH, RNB OVERSEAS, 25 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COLONY, KUNJPURA ROAD, NEAR I.T.I. KARNAL, MOBILE NO.87087 64491.
3. MADHUR PNB OVERSEAS, 25, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COLONY, KUNJPURA ROAD, NEAR I.T.I. KARNAL M.NO.92159 41182.
4. ROHIT PNB OVERSEAS, 25, INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT COLONY, KUNJPURA ROAD, NEAR I.T.I. KARNAL M.NO.92159 41181.
5.  DEALER JOGINDER SINGH, BOHLI ROAD, PIPLI, DISTT. KURUKSHETRA, MOBILE NO.99967 54201. 

 

..………OPs.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986. 

                                                                                               

Before           Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                    Ms. Neelam, Member.

                    Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

Present :        Complainant in person.

                    OPs already exparte.

                                     

ORDER

 

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Vinod Kumar against RNB Overseas and others, the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased an e-rickshaw bearing model RF-100 and chassis No.18K0126 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- from the Op No.1 vide invoice No.RNB/18-19/07 dt. 10.05.2018.  It is alleged that just after two months of its purchase, the said e-rickshaw became defective with the problems in motor, handle, meter, wiring, battery, chassis and tyres etc.  It is alleged that the complainant approached the Ops regarding defective e-rickshaw but despite repair of said e-rickshaw several times and replacement of batteries two times, the defects were not removed from the said e-rickshaw.  It is further alleged that the average of said e-rickshaw is only 40-50 kilometers, whereas the Ops had told the average of said e-rickshaw as 100 Kms.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to replace the defective e-rickshaw with the new one or to refund the cost of e-rickshaw amounting to Rs.1,20,000/- and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as as litigation charges.   

3.             Upon notice, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 14.11.2018.

4.             The complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and thereafter, closed the evidence.   

5.             We have heard the complainant in person and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

6.             From the cash memo, Ex.C2 it is clear that the complainant purchased the e-rickshaw in question from the Op No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-.  The grievance of the complainant is that just after two months of its purchase, the said e-rickshaw became defective with the several defects such as motor, handle, meter, wiring, battery, chassis and tyres etc.  Despite repair of said e-rickshaw several times including replacement of batteries two times, the above-said defects were not removed from the said e-rickshaw.  The complainant has supported his versions in the affidavit, Ex.CW1/A so set out by him in the complaint.  Besides the affidavit, the complainant has supported his versions by the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.  Whereas, on the other hand, the Ops did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte.  So, there is no rebuttal on the part of Ops.  Hence, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged.  In view of the same, we find that the complaint filed by the complainant is as genuine and the Ops are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

6.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint exparte and direct the Ops to replace the defective e-rickshaw with the new one of the same value and further to pay Rs.5,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and litigation charges.  The complainant is directed to deposit the defective e-rickshaw alongwith accessories in the service-centre of Ops.  However, it is made clear that if the same e-rickshaw as purchased by the complainant from the Ops is not available with the Ops, then they will refund the purchased amount of e-rickshaw to the complainant.  All the Ops are jointly and severally liable.  Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

Dt.:04.01.2019.     

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.