BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 644 of 2022.
Date of Institution : 27.10.2022.
Date of Decision : 20.03.2024.
Inder Pal Singh, aged about 57 years son of Shri Mangal Singh, resident of 184, Global Spaces, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
Sai Baba Motors, Arya Samaj Road, Near Andhra Bank, Parshuram Chowk, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa through its Proprietor/Manager/ Partner/ Authorized person.
...…Opposite party.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR……………………….MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to OP).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant has purchased Scooter Legend colour white from op for a sum of Rs.47,000/- vide invoice No. 100849 dated 02.11.2021 and op gave guarantee of one year. The said scooter is still under guarantee period. That op assured the complainant that said scooter shall run for 40-50 kilometers after charging whereas same is running for only 20-22 kilometers after charge. It is further averred that complainant made complaints to the op and all the times op assured that its battery backup system will increase day by day but all in vain and battery backup problem has not been resolved till today and even the same has been decreased day by day. That the motor of said scooter gave huge sound which is not bearable whereas op assured that it will not give huge sound. Even digital meter is not running properly but it has been showing excessive reading. On complaint, the op has changed some parts of the scooter by getting huge amount from complainant wrongly and illegally despite the fact that it is still under guarantee period. It is further averred that even rear brake of scooter is not working properly from very beginning and op has only given assurances but failed to repair or replace it intentionally. That complainant approached and requested the op to admit his claim but all in vain and op has ignored the complainant and refused to repair or replace the said scooter. The above said defects are manufacturing defects since beginning and due to this it could not be repaired by op and the act and conduct on the part of op clearly amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice due to which complainant has suffered unnecessary harassment and mental agony. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, initially op appeared through counsel and filed written statement submitting therein that at the time of sale of the scooter, it was made clear by op to the complainant that said scooter shall run about 30 Kms after the same is fully charged once. It was further made clear that as much as the battery of the scooter become older, there shall be every possibility of reduction of mileage of the scooter. Since the present complaint has been filed after about one year of the purchase, it is clear that complaint regarding less mileage of the scooter is only due to the fact that battery has become older and there is no manufacturing defect in the scooter. As per complaint itself, the op rendered best services to the complainant as and when he made complaints regarding any of the alleged defect. As and when complainant made complaints regarding any of the defect in the scooter, the op immediately sent its technician to the complainant who duly inspected the scooter and whatever defect was, the same was duly repaired free of cost as the same was within the period of guarantee and still the complainant for the reasons best known to him has filed present false complaint only in order to harass, humiliate and to cause loss to the op which as per law is not admissible. Remaining other contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A and copy of invoice dated 02.11.2021 Ex.C1.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that on 31.10.2023 when the case was fixed for evidence of op subject to last opportunities, none appeared on behalf of op and as such op was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter, on 08.02.2024 an application was moved on behalf of op for setting aside exparte order dated 31.10.2023 but on 14.03.2024 when the case was fixed for filing reply and consideration on the application, none appeared on behalf of op and vide a detailed order dated 14.03.2024, the application for setting aside exparte order was dismissed.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have gone through the case file.
7. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the contents of his complaint. The complainant has also placed on file invoice dated 02.11.2021 Ex.C1, the perusal of which reveals that on 02.11.2021 complainant purchased scooter in question from op for a sum of Rs.47,000/-. Admittedly, one year guarantee of the scooter in question was given by op but complainant is alleging above said various defects in the scooter i.e. battery problem, high sound and defect in the digital meter since from very beginning after purchase of the scooter in question and has also filed present complaint on 27.10.2022 i.e. before expiry of guarantee period of one year. It is a very commonly known fact that in the electric scooters, battery is the main component on the basis of which electric scooter gives performance and although one year guarantee of the scooter including its battery is given but the battery of the electric vehicles gives best performances even for more than two years whereas in the present case the battery of the scooter started giving problem just from beginning and ultimately complainant had to file the complaint before expiry of guarantee period. It is also common known fact that the batteries of electric scooters are very expensive and when the same is changed after period of two/ three years, same costs Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Besides the problem of battery, the scooter has also other defects as it gives high sound and its meter is also defective. The op despite appearance and availing various opportunities for leading evidence has failed to lead any evidence to prove the fact that there is no defect in the scooter. So, the op is liable to refund the price of the scooter in question after some depreciation because any direction regarding replacement of battery etc. would not serve the purpose rather will result in further litigation because the op has not only caused deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and harassment to the complainant but also we have observed the recklessness attitude of the op towards the complainant as evident from language of written version filed by op. So, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the refund of the price of the scooter after depreciation would be just and proper instead of giving any direction to the op to replace the battery which also costs more than Rs.15,000/- because besides problem of battery there are also other defects in the scooter.
8. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite party to make refund of the amount of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant (i.e. after depreciation of the amount of Rs.12,000/- from actual price of Rs.47,000/-) within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which complainant will be entitled to receive the amount of Rs.35,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. We also direct the op to further pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as composite compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within above said stipulated period. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced. Member President
Dt. 20.03.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
