CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.363/13
NARESH PANWAR
S/O SH. DHARAM SINGH PANWAR,\
252-A, SHAH PUR JAT,
NEW DELHI- 110049…..COMPLAINANT
-
- SAI SHOURYA MOTORS,
SHOW ROOM AT:
F-135, A-1/1, GROUND FLOOR,
MANNULAL BUILDING, PILI KOTHI,
M.B. ROAD, NEW DELHI – 110062
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
SH. PREM PAL CHOUDHARY
- BSA MOTORS,
(DIVISION OF TUBE INVESTMENTS OF INDIA LTD.)
POST BAG NO. 5, M.T.H. ROAD, AMBATTUR,
CHENNAI- 600 053 (TAMIL NADU),
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ..RESPONDENTS
Date of Institution-03.07.2013
Date of Order-27.02.2023
O R D E R
DR. RAJENDER DHAR-MEMBER
Complainant has filed the complaint under Section 2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against both the OPs stating that OP2 is engaged in manufacturer of BSA street rider Scooty and the complainant had purchased BSA Street rider Scooty bearing chassis No. MDE02B1EDCA000165 and Motor No. BSA22912010085 from OP2 through OP1 who is the dealer of OP2 having dealing code 65505 on 19.7.2012 vide retail invoice book No. 03 and Serial No. 133 for an amount of Rs.29,870/- which was paid in cash. The Scooty come with Exide Battery bearing code 6DZM 17 and serial No. SJ1010765- SJ 1010768 part no. of battery is 6 SPS BT00025, the Scooty has other components also. Copies of Retail Invocie dated 19.7.2012 has also been enclosed with complainant as Annexue-C-1(Colly).
After running Scooty for one and a half months of taking delivery, battery of the Scooty started giving troubles along with numerous problems. The Scooty use to run for 10 Kms. Only with single charge, this has reduced the running capacity of the Scooty drastically. The complainant informed about the problem and the condition of the battery to OP1. Warranty paper was also provided by OP1 on 10.10.2012. OP1 observed ‘Battery bulge-old Battery’ and assured complainant that defect would be removed within 15 days. Complainant visited the OP for rectifying the said defective battery but to no avail. Copy of the warranty claims dated 10.10.2012 was also enclosed as Annexure-C-2.
Complainant again visited OP1 on 06.11.2012 he was informed by OP1 that the defective battery has been sent to Chennai by them but no time for removing this defect was given to the complainant despite repeated contacts. Complainant even contacted the representative of OP2 at Chennai but complaint was not resolved despite contacting several times. Every time complainant was assured that his complaint would be redressed and the problem of battery would be resolved. Complainant repeatedly requested for replacing the battery or is providing him new battery after adjustment for reimbursement to OP1.
Once again complainant contacted OP1 for change of battery but it did not work. Complainant felt cheated by the OPs with malafide intentions since despite repeated efforts his complaint was not settled/ resolved by OP1 and OP2 by delay dallying tactics the complainant felt cheated and the Scooty is still lying in the showroom of OP1. Complainant has spent considerable time in approaching and making efforts with both the OPs but it has not worked in any manner. The complainant has stated that he has been harassed physically due to the conduct by OPs in not resolving his complaint, this has affected his livelihood also. Despite passage of nine months the problem still remains unresolved. Complainant had to travel by auto from his office and back to home for which he has been spending Rs. 200/- per day from second week of September onwards.
The complainant has further stated that OPs have indulged into unfair trade practice and grave deficiency in services by not resolving/ rectifying/ replacing the battery which has resulted into his mental and physical harassment with expenditure on travelling from home to office and back every day. He was also ill treated by OP1. Complainant also sent a legal notice dated 07.05.2013 through his counsel and in response thereof OP was agreed to extend the warranty period for 6 months and replace the old battery with new one, however, despite written assurances the same was not carried out by OP2. In fact, warranty period has also expired during this time. Copy of legal notice dated 07.05.2013 with Postal and Courier Receipts have also been enclosed as Annexure-C-4 and Annexure C-3 (Colly) respectively.
The complainant has further stated both the OPs are deliberately harassing him by not curing the defects of battery in time despite repeated attempts/ efforts by the complainant.
Complainant has prayed for replacement of old Scooty with new one or refund of purchase consideration amount of Rs.29,870/- along with 18% P.A. interest from 10.10.2012 till date Scooty is handed over to him by OP. He has also claimed from OP an amount of Rs.57,000/- as loss/damage due to unavailability of the said Scooty along with 18% P.A. and has also claimed Rs. 2000/- for visiting office of the OP, Rs. 15,000/- on account of legal expenses and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation damages for mental agony, harassment and hardship undergone by the complainant due to deficient services of OP. The cause of action still continues.
Notice was issued to both the OPs and copy of the complaint was provided to AR of both the OPs on 20.08.2013 however, despite repeated opportunities no written statement was filed by OP1 and hence OP1 was proceeded Ex-parte on 13.08.2014. OP2 has filed its reply. OP2 stated in his reply that there is no deficiency in service rather complainant wants extort money from OP2. He has also stated that every dealer is provided with replacement of spares including battery, charger, motor, controller etc. and if need arises these can be replaced by the dealer i.e. OP1. He has further stated that the complainant was informed by AR of OP2 to approach OP1 for rectifying the defect in the battery. OP2 was further contended that the Scooty did not have manufacturing defect. After receiving the legal notice by OP2, as a reply to the legal notice OP2 vide his letter addressed to Sh. Milan Kumar advocate of the complainant informed that they have offered new battery to the complainant so that the vehicle can ply on road however, the same has not been accepted by the complainant and if required warranty period can be extended by six months as a goodwill gesture for customer.
In respect to the other paras of the complaint, OP2 has mostly denied for want of information and knowledge and in the end has prayed that since there is no manufacturing defect therefore, the complaint is not maintainable and hence may be disposed.
Complainant has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by OP2 and also filed evidence by way of affidavit thereafter, both the parties filed their written arguments.
Complainant has filed its rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit in which he has reiterated his complaint and in support of his contentions he has annexed copies of invoice dated 17.09.2012 which is exhibited Exhibit-C-1 (Colly).
Warranty claim dated 10.10.2012 in which ‘Battery bulge- old battery’ has been observed by OP1 is exhibited as Exhibit-C2.
Copy of legal notice is exhibited as Exhibit C-3.
Copy of the reply to the legal notice sent by OP2 is exhibited as Exhibit C-4.
OP in his evidence has reiterated the same contentions as per their written submissions however, no document as such has been exhibited in support of their contentions.
Complainant as well as OP2 filed their written argument.
The Commission has perused and examined the documents filed by the complainant and OP2 on record and after careful consideration it is been observed that the fact the Scooty has been purchased by complainant from OP1 has not been refuted, this fact is duly supported by the invoice which shows complainant has actually purchased the Scooty from OP1 vide invoice dated 19.07.2012 which is exhibited as Annexure-C-1(Colly) for an amount of Rs.29870/-, warranty of registration carrying serial no. 16433 dated 19.07.2012 has also been enclosed and exhibited by the complainant. This is an undertaking of warranty given by OP1. Warranty claim has also been exhibited by the complainant in which ‘Battery bulge- old battery’ has been mentioned by OP1 is a clear proof that the said battery in question was defective which has been certified by OP1 itself and due to this fact OP2 has offered 6 months extension of the warranty period but despite assurance OP2 has not provided replacement of new battery by directing OP1 their authorised dealer to do the needful so that the complainant grievances/ complaint is settled.
It can be easily construed that both the Ops have had full information and knowledge about the defective battery but OP1 despite obtaining copy of the complaint and availing various opportunities did not file his written statement and hence was proceeded Ex-parte. It is also not denied that the complainant due to unavailability of Scooty was put to great harassment problem by committing everyday from his residence to office back for which he has been spending from his pocket. OP2 has also mentioned that all the authorised dealers are also provided with sufficient stocks of replacements like battery, charger, motor, controller etc. in various e- mails filed by OP2 itself. It is also observed that during the warranty period the battery which is provided by the manufacturer i.e. OP2 and its part of the Scooty itself had a manufacturing defect after running one and a half months only. The conduct and attitude of OP2 despite assurance has not been pro-customer as his grievance/ inconvenience/ problem was never resolved.
The Scooty is also lying with OP1 and no action has been taken by OP2 to ensure rectification of defect and handing over of the Scooty to the complainant by directing OP1 to do so. This shows total careless attitude of OP2, the manufacturer in resolving the genuine complaint of the complainant.
The Commission after considering all the facts on record available orders the following:-
- OPs are directed to refund an amount of Rs.29,870/- with @9% interest from the date of filing of complaint till its realization.
2. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to be paid jointly and severely by OP1 and OP2 towards mental harassment, agony and hardship suffered by complainant due to the deficiency in services.
3.An amount of Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.
The above order shall be complied within 3 months from the date of uploading the order, failing which the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12 p.a. on the entire amount till actual realization.
