Haryana

Kaithal

248/19

Himanshu Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.S Bikes - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Aditya Garg

02 Aug 2023

ORDER

                

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.248/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 19.08.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:02.08.2023.

Himanshu Bansal age about 19 years son of Sh. Raj Kumar, r/o H.No.55/A, Maharaja Aggarsain Colony, Udyog Marg, Jind Road, Kaithal, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. S.S.Bikes, near RKSD School, Ambala Road, Kaithal, through its proprietor.
2. AKASH INDCHI IMPORT & EXPORT COMPANY, R/O 124-A, Ist Floor, Katwaria Sarai, New Delhi-110016 & 2^nd Address; Sarehouse Add. House No.9, Main Road, Opp. Prachin Shiv Mandir, Chirag Delhi-110017.

….OPs.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                   SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                   SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Aditya Garg, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Mukesh Bansal, Advocate for the OP.No.1.

                OP No.2 given-up.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Himanshu Bansal-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OPs.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased an Electric Bike, Model VEETA, for a sum of Rs.46,500/- vide bill No.222 dt. 10.05.2019 against the warranty of one year.  It is alleged that after some time of its purchase, the speedometer was not working properly and body of said electric bike has been loose and was vibrating at the time of running on the road.  The complainant made several complaints to the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 changed the defective speedometer with the old one but the defect of body of above-said electric bike was not removed.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared before this Commission, whereas OP No.2 was given-up by ld. counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement recorded on 01.12.2020.  OP No.1 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this commission.  The true facts are that the complainant had told the answering OP that he wanted to return the bike in question after deducting the reasonable depreciation as he was no more interested in the said bike.  The complainant had further requested the answering OP that if the answering OP could not take it back, then the answering OP could sale it to any other person and give the sale money to the complainant but the answering OP refused to take back the bike in question.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 & Annexure-C2 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP No.1 did not tender evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of OP No.1 was closed vide court order dt. 24.08.2022.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased an Electric Bike, Model VEETA, for a sum of Rs.46,500/- vide bill No.222 dt. 10.05.2019 against the warranty of one year.  It is further argued that after some time of its purchase, the speedometer was not working properly and body of said electric bike was loose and vibrating at the time of running on the road.  The complainant made several complaints to the OP No.1 and the OP No.1 changed the defective speedometer with the old one but the defect of body of above-said electric bike was not removed.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that the complainant had told the OP No.1 that he wanted to return the bike in question after deducting the reasonable depreciation as he was no more interested in the said bike.  It is further argued that the complainant had further requested the OP No.1 that if the OP No.1 could not take it back, then the OP No.1 could sale it to any other person and give the sale money to the complainant but the OP No.1 refused to take back the bike in question. 

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties. It is clear from the invoice dt. 10.05.2019 as per Annexure-C1 that the complainant purchased the electric bike in question for the sum of Rs.46,500/-.  It is also clear from the pleadings of the complainant that the said electric bike in question became defective within the warranty period.  The grievance of the complainant is that the speed meter was not working properly and battery of said electric bike in question was also defective.  According to complainant, he approached the OP No.1 and OP No.1 replaced the speed meter with the old one instead of new speed meter and did not replace the battery in question.  From the record, it is clear that the complainant has used the electric bike about three months only and thereafter, the same became defective.  The complainant has filed the present complaint in this Commission on 19.08.2019 i.e. after about three months of its purchase.  So, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice will be met if the cost of electric bike be ordered to be refunded after making 25% depreciation of the same.  In this regard, we can rely upon the authority decided by Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana bearing first appeal No.460 of 2014 decided on 28.05.2014 titled as Deepjot Singh Vs. The Mobile Store. 

7.             Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we direct the OP No.1 to pay Rs.34,875/- the cost of the electric bike in question after deducting 25% depreciation i.e. (Rs.46,500/- less Rs.11,625/-=Rs.34,875/-) within 45 days from today, in default, the aforesaid amount shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.  The OP No.1 is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant.  However, it is made clear that the complainant shall submit the old electric bike with the OP No.1, if the same is still lying with the complainant.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly against OP No.1 and dismissed against OP No.2 as OP No.2 was given-up by ld. counsel for the complainant vide his separate statement recorded on 01.12.2020.

8.          In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against OP No.1 shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:02.08.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.