DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 1506 of 2009 Date of Inst: 21.12.2009 Date of Decision:15.10.2010 Sunil Kumar s/o Ram Parkash r/o H.No.27/7, Master Colony Kurali, Tehsil Kharar SAS Nagar, Mohali. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. The Chandigarh Auto Care, SCO No.482, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh through its Proprietor/Director. 2. The Electrotherm (India) Limited, (Auto Division), 72 Palodia (via Thaltej) Ahmedabad-382115, Gujrat, India through its Managing Director. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: None for the complainant. Sh.Peeush Gagneja, Adv. for OP-2 OP-1 already exparte. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Sunil Kumar has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Refund Rs.35000/- being the price of the vehicle along with interest @ 12% p.a. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 22.12.2008, he purchased Yospeed two wheeler manufactured by M/s Electrotherm (India) Limited (OP-2) from OP-1 for Rs.35000/-. OP-1 assured the complainant that Yospeed two wheeler is designed with latest technology, It is light weight with the approximate average of 60 km when the battery of the vehicle is fully charged. According to the complainant, soon after the purchase the vehicle started giving the following problems:- i) Wheel alignment is not proper and vehicle on a run had a vibration in the handle as well as in the entire body. Whenever the vehicle is driven by the complainant, there is always a fear due to abnormal vibrations that vehicle will lose its balance and fell down to earth. ii) Average of the vehicle is only 10 kms approximately when the battery is fully charged by the complainant against the commitment of the OPs to the extent of 60 kms etc. It has been averred by the complainant that he approached OPs a number of times with the said problems but OPs failed to remove the same. Therefore, he requested for refund of its price, however, OPs refused to do so. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice upon the OPs but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply-cum-affidavit filed by the OP-2, it has been pleaded that no assurance was ever given to the complainant that the average of the vehicle in question is approximately 60 kms when the battery is fully charged. It has further been pleaded that the complainant never brought to the notice about the defects mentioned in para 2(i) and 2(ii) above.The case of OPs is that at the time of service, the complainant pointed some minor defects in vehicle which were rectified. The battery was also changed free of cost only to satisfy the complainant despite the fact that the said battery was completely functional. It has further been pleaded that the complainant had purchased the vehicle after pre-delivery inspection to his entire satisfaction. It has further been averred that average of the battery depends on many parameters like: “1. Driving habits and road conditions. 2. Acceleration and braking. 3. Free movement of both the wheels. 4. Sudden acceleration and sudden braking. 5. Maintaining of correct air pressure in the tyre etc. 6. Putting the extra load on the vehicle etc. 7. Charge of the battery. The charger should be in good conditions and current supply should be as per the specifications etc.” According to OP-2, the complainant is not giving any attention to the said parameters. Otherwise also, there is no report of any expert to the effect that the battery is giving low average or that the same is defective in any manner. It has further been pleaded that the complainant had left the vehicle at the premises of OP for some repair works. The said works have been done despite the fact that information was given to the complainant in writing as well as orally, he has failed to pick up the said vehicle. In these circumstances, according to OP-2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. Initially OP-1 appeared through its authorized representative namely Sh.K.C.Sharma but subsequently it failed to appear either in person or its agent/counel. Therefore, it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.04.2010 5. As none is present on behalf of the complainant, therefore we proceed to dispose of the complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 19878 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 even in the absence of the complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP No.2 and perused the record and gone through the documents very carefully. 6. OP-1 adopts the reply filed by the OP-2. 7. The only grouse of the complainant is that the wheel alignment of the vehicle in question is not proper and vehicle vibrates while running on orad and it is not giving the proper average as assured by OPs. It will be pertinent to mention here that no evidence of an expert has been placed on record to prove that the alignment of the wheels is not proper or that there is any vibration in the vehicle at the time of its running on the road. According to OP-2, no such complaint was ever made by the complainant at the time of its service. The complainant has failed to place on record any document to prove that such defects were brought to the notice of OPs at the time of its free service of the vehicle. As far as battery is concerned, the lower average, if any, is on account of the facts that the complainant is not adhering to the parameters mentioned above. 8. Hence, the complainant has failed to make out a case of deficiency in service against the OPs. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced sd/- 15.10.2010 (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
C.C.No.1506 of 2009 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 13.10.2010. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 15.10.2010 Member President Member
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
