DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

Consumer Complaint No: 216/2014

Date of Institution : 14.10.2014

Date of Decision : 06.04.2015

In the matter of:

Gagandeep Bansal aged about 33 years son of Ram Partap Bansal C/o M.B. Agro Center, Village Aspal Kalan, Post Office Kotdunna, Tehsil and District Barnala.

…Complainant

Versus

1. Singla Autos, Opp. Civil Courts, Gate No. 2, Handiaya Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala, through its partner/proprietor.

2. Electrotherm (I) Ltd., Auto Division, Head Office, 72 Palodia (via Thaltej), Ahmedabad-382115 (Gujarat), through its M.D./Manager.

3. Electrotherm (I) Ltd., Auto Division, Regional Office (North), 217, 2^nd Floor, Suneja Tower-II, Distt. Centre, Janak Palace, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before:-

1. Sh. Sukhpal Singh Gill : President.

2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member

3. Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member

For the complainant : Sh. N.K. Garg, Advocate

For the opposite party No. 1 : Sh. S.M. Gupta, Advocate

For opposite parties No. 2 & 3 : Sh. Sham Kumar Technician.

ORDER: BY SUKHPAL SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT:

Gagandeep Bansal complainant (hereinafter referred as to CC for short) has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein referred as to OPs for short), on the ground that, CC purchased YO Exl bike, bearing VIN No. MBTXL010KDK005363, Motor No. ETML481100013100178, Owner Manual Book No. 7640, Colour White, vide invoice No. 49 dated 1.11.2013, by paying an amount of Rs. 50,518/-, from the O.P-1, which is manufactured by O.P-2 and O.P-3 is the Regional Office of the O.P-2.

It is alleged that, CC took the delivery of YO Exl bike on 1.11.2013 and got it registered with Motor Vehicle Authority, Barnala, vide registration No. PB-19J-7526. It is alleged that, O.P-1 through pamphlets and advertisement in the papers lured the customers that, the average/mileage of the vehicle is 60/65 kms, when once the battery was fully charged, but the mileage of the above said vehicle was found not more than 10 kms, after charging the full battery of the vehicle.

It is further alleged that, on 15.11.2013, CC made a complaint to the O.P-1 that, the mileage of the vehicle is not more than 10 kms, but the O.P-1 assured the CC that, after 2 or 3 services of the vehicle, the mileage will increase and it will give 60/65 kms mileage.

It is further alleged that, on 25.12.2013, CC got 1^st service of his YO bike done from the O.P-1, 2^nd service on 8.3.2014, 3^rd service on 5.5.2014 and 4^th service on 27.8.2014, but there was no improvement in the mileage and CC brought this fact into the knowledge of O.P-1. CC made various representations with the O.P-1, but O.P-1 failed to rectify the defect and further did not pay any attention towards the request of the CC.

It is alleged that, even at present the mileage of the YO Exl bike is not more than 10 kms. CC did not sign any satisfactory note at the time of service of the vehicle. It is further alleged that, O.Ps harassed the CC and caused economic loss to the CC due to which CC suffered mental as well as physical harassment.

Thus, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, CC has sought the following reliefs against the OPs.-

1) OPs be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 50,518/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization to the CC.

2) OPs be further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.

Complaint of the CC is signed and verified. The complaint is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.

2. In reply, OP-1 has admitted that, CC purchased YO Exl electric bike bearing VIN No. MBTXL010KDK005363, Motor No. ETML481100013100178, Owner Manual Book No. 7640, Colour White, vide invoice No. 49 dated 1.11.2013 from the O.P-1 being authorized dealer of YO bikes for sale & service, which has been manufactured by O.Ps-2 & 3. It is averred that, customer was advised to study the service book on the day of the purchase of vehicle for maintaining the vehicle in good condition, by availing 3 free services & rest paid services to complete the one year comprehensive warranty period. Accordingly, CC availed 3 free services on 25.12.2013, 8.3.2014 & 5.5.2014. CC also availed 4^th paid service on 27.8.2014. It is further submitted that, after every service, signatures of the CC or his representative has been obtained on the service coupon to the satisfaction of the CC.

It is further averred that, when the CC handed over the vehicle for service, every time job card is prepared for carrying out the necessary service & repairs, as intimated by the customer & while delivering the vehicle after service, the customer signed the job card in token of receiving his vehicle to his entire satisfaction. CC has signed 4 job cards bearing 1^st job card No. 1738 dated 21.12.2013, 2^nd job card No. 105 dated 4.3.2014, 3^rd job card No. 173 dated 21.4.2014 & 4^th job card No. 324 dated 19.8.2014.

It is further averred that, CC has misinformed the Hon'ble Forum that, the mileage of his vehicle is not more than 10 kms after fully charging the vehicle. It is submitted that, on availing 3^rd free service, CC has intimated that, the mileage of his vehicle is 35 kms, which has been mentioned in the job card, duly signed by the CC. It is specifically submitted that, CC has made cutting by overwriting the figure from 30 kms to 10 kms.

It is further averred that, at the time of 4^th service CC reported mileage of the vehicle to be 20 kms as per job card, but after the service the vehicle was taken for road test, which resulted in 40 kms. The job card is duly signed by the father of the CC. On receiving the notice from the Hon'ble Forum, O.Ps-2 & 3 deputed their Technician to resolve the complaint by removing the defects of the vehicle and he also took road test of the vehicle, which was noticed to be 28 kms on economy mode. Accordingly, job card was prepared, but CC refused to sign the same.

Thus alleging no deficiency in service on its part, OP-1 has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

The version of OP-1 is signed and verified.

The Ops-2 & 3 have filed version in the shape of affidavit of one Jitendra Shrivastav Yobykes Regional Service Head. In reply, O.Ps-2 & 3 denied all the allegations of the CC. It is averred that, O.Ps-2 & 3 is the leading manufacturer firm of battery operated vehicles. They are taking every possible care for quality in respect of material and workmanship. All the vehicles are tested in Quality Control Department at the Factory and then only the vehicle is supplied to its various authorized dealers for selling on the road.

It is further submitted that, even at the time of purchase, CC was given test ride as also pre-delivery inspection of the vehicle is well carried out by their dealer executive and then after confirmation only the vehicle was purchased by the CC.

It is further submitted that, CC has also inspected and tested the vehicle before purchase and, therefore, no question of manufacturing defects in the vehicle has arisen. CC was also given full understanding with regard to warranty terms and conditions like basic working & operation etc. It was also explained to the CC that, the warranty period of the vehicle is of one year and that of batteries is of one year as per given in owner manual on page No. 31.

It is averred that, CC availed 1^st service on 25.12.2013 & battery was tested under the 1^st service was in good health. Even, in 2^nd, 3^rd & 4^th service battery was tested and battery health was good. Even, on 27.10.2014, vehicle of the CC was attended by the Company Technician at his village by taking the mileage test and obtained the mileage 28 kms, but CC refused to sign the job card.

Thus alleging no deficiency in service on their part, Ops-2 & 3 have also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

3. CC in support of his claim, has tendered into evidence Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9, which included a copy of bill dated 1.11.2013, copy of RC, copies of service coupons, affidavit of Ram Partap, affidavit of Gagandeep Bansal, copy of page No. 5 of service book and closed his evidence.

4. On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence of the CC, OP-1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Surinider Kumar Ex.OP-1/1, copies of job cards Ex.O.P-1/2 to Ex.O.P-1/5 and closed its evidence. Sh. Sham Kumar Service Executive on behalf of O.Ps-2 & 3 has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.O.P2.3/1, copy of warranty policy of battery Ex.O.P2.3/2 and Ex.O.P2.3/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of O.Ps-2 & 3.

5. We have minutely perused the entire complaint, versions filed by the OPs and evidence of the parties and also heard Counsel for the parties at length.

6. It is an admitted fact that, CC had purchased YO Exl bike, bearing VIN No. MBTXL010KDK005363, Motor No. ETML481100013100178, Owner Manual Book No. 7640, Colour White, vide invoice No. 49 dated 1.11.2013 Ex.C-1, by paying an amount of Rs. 50,518/- from the O.P-1. It is further admitted fact that, O.P-2 is the manufacturer, O.P-3 is the Regional Office of the O.P-2 and OP-1 is the authorized dealer of Ops-2 and 3. It is also admitted fact that, the warranty period of the vehicle is of one year.

The allegation of the CC is that, O.P-1 at the time of selling the YO bike assured the CC that, the mileage of the vehicle is 60/65 kms, when once the battery was fully charged, but from the very beginning the mileage of the vehicle was found only 10 kms after charging the full battery of the vehicle. CC in support of his complaint has tendered into evidence Ex.C-9 copy of page No. 5 of service book, wherein, it is mentioned that, the Max speed of the vehicle is 55 km/hr @ 75 kgs and Max Range (Milage) of the vehicle is 70-75 km @ 75 kg at 30-35 km/hr speed.

On the other hand, in order to rebut the allegation of the CC, O.Ps has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sham Kumar Technician of the O.Ps Ex.O.P-2.3/1. We have gone through the affidavit, wherein, it is mentioned that, on 27.10.2014 the vehicle was tested by the deponent Sham Kumar himself and obtained 28 kms mileage on fully charged battery, which clearly proved that, OPs themselves admitted that, the mileage of the vehicle was 28 Kms, whereas as per owner's manual Ex.C-9, the mileage of the vehicle would be 70 to 75 Kms. In this way, the OPs themselves admitted in the affidavit of Sham Kumar Ex.OPs-2.3/1 that, the mileage of the vehicle is much less than the OPs claimed in their documents.

It is further proved on the file that, CC many times approached the OP-1 with the complaint that, the mileage of the vehicle is not more than 10 kms even after availing the four services, but O.Ps have failed to rectify the defects in the vehicle. Even, in the job cards Ex.OP-1/2 to Ex.OP-1/5 it is clearly mentioned that, as and when CC approached the OP-1 for service, every time he made the complaint regarding less mileage but OPs failed to remove this defect. Further, all the OPs in their version at any point of time not specifically denied the allegation of the CC regarding less mileage of the vehicle.

It has been held by the Hon'ble Gujrat State Commission in case titled Michelin India Tyres Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dr. Dinesh Thakur & Others reported 2014 (2) CLT-381 (GJ) that.-

Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (g)- Manufacturing defect- Within two months of the purchase of the new Honda City car, the tyre of the car was damaged-Held-When the tyre was damaged within 2 months, it was the duty of the manufacturer of the tyre to show reasons for the damage and they failed to do so- It was for the appellant to prove before the Forum that the damage caused to the tyre was not due to any manufacturing defect-Appeal dismissed.”

Similarly, in the present case manufacturer failed to show reasons for the defect in the YO bike for not giving the proper mileage, as assured by the O.Ps and also failed to prove before the Forum that, the defect arose in the YO bike was not due to any manufacturing defect. Further, CC clearly mentioned in his complaint that, immediately after the purchase of YO bike the same was not giving mileage for more than 10 kms.

In view of the aforementioned facts, circumstances and citation, there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops-2 and 3. Accordingly, we allow the present complaint against the OPs-2 & 3 and order the OPs-2 and 3, to replace the defective YO electric bike of the CC with a new one of the same model alongwith new warranty. We further order the O.Ps-2 and 3 jointly and severally to pay a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- to the CC, for causing physical as well as mental harassment to him and also dragging him into unwanted litigation.

This order of ours shall be complied within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. The file after its due completion be consigned to the records.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:

6^th Day of April 2015

(Sukhpal Singh Gill)

President.

I do agree.

(Karnail Singh)

Member.

Vandna Sidhu

(Member)