Delhi

North East

CC/336/2024

VIPIN SONTHALIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, REVOLD INTELLICORP PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Jun 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.336/24

In the matter of:

 

	Sh. Vipin Sonthalia, R/o H. No. 18, St. No. 14, C Block, Dayalpur, Near Delhi Police Camp, North East Delhi, Dayalpur, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	The Authorized Signatory Revolt Intellicorp Pvt. Ltd.   Having registered office at:- REVOLT House Corporate Office:- No.4 Sector 8 Road, IMT Manesar, Gurugram, Haryana 122051	Opposite Party

 

ORDER

 

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

1. As per the complaint filed by the Complainant, the case of the Complainant is that he booked electric bike RV400 on 27.10.22 having booking ID RV22J58317 from Opposite Party and paid Rs. 9,999/- against booking receipt. At the time of booking, FAME II subsidy was applicable on the above said bike but the Opposite Party was not able to deliver the bike on time and even after several reminders from Complainant to Opposite Party the bike was not delivered till March 2023. In March, Opposite Party informed Complainant that bike is available but at higher price because applicable subsidy has been withdrawn by government and gave two options either to cancel booking or to accept bike at higher price and thereafter Complainant cancelled booking on 03.04.23 and Opposite Party gave cancellation receipt and told Complainant that booking amount will be refunded within 7-10 working days but the amount was not refunded back to Complainant and whenever Complainant contacted Opposite Party, Opposite Party gave false assurances regarding refund. It is stated that on serving legal notice Opposite Party agreed to pay the booking amount of      Rs. 9,999/- only but denied to pay legal fees or any compensation in lieu of mental harassment of Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 9,999/- and Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation. He also prayed for Rs. 15,000/- for litigation expenses.
2. As per documents filed by Complainant along with complaint, Opposite Party sent a mail to the Complainant offering him the refund and again to the reply to the legal notice of the Complainant, Opposite Party asked him to provide details of his bank account for the refund.
3.  The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of The Branch Manager, Indigo Airlines, Kolkata and Another vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma and Others (2020) 9SCC 424) held that the initial onus or burden to justify, verify and authenticate the fact that there is a deficiency of service committed by a party is on the Complainant.
4. In view of the above discussion, the Complainant is failed to prove any deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Party. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
5. Order announced on 13.06.24.

Copy of this order be given to the Complainant free of cost.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)