Date of filing: 14.02.2011
Date of order: 24.08.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE AT VELLORE DISTRICT.
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc. B.L., MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER - II
WEDNESDAY THE DAY OF 24th AUGUST 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.3/2011
R. Natarajan,
S/o. M.S. Ramachandran,
No.31, Gandhi Road,
Udayendhiram,
Vaniyambadi,
Vellore District. …Complainant.
-Vs-
1. The Manager,
Balamurugan Automobiles,
Dealer: TVS Motor Company Ltd.,
Arcot-Vellore Bye-pass Road,
Near Hotel Ariyass Rountanaa,
Vellore District.
2. The Manager,
Balamurugan Enterprises,
Dealer: TVS Motor Company Ltd.,
No.70C, Palanisamy Mudali Road,
Thirupathur, Vellore District – 632 601.
3. The Manager,
Balamurugan Enterprises,
Dealer: TVS Motor Company Ltd.,
Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.
4. The Manager,
TVS Motor Company Limited,
Post box No: 4, Harita Hosur – 635 109. …Opposite parties.
Counsel for complainant : Thiru. V. Jothiram
Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 : Thiru. K. Balachandar.
ORDER
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER - II
This complaint has been filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the complainant has prayed to this Hon’ble Commission to direct the first opposite party to pay the cost of the TEENZ Electric Bike of Rs.35,669/- and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages for mental agony, inconveniences, loss and hardship due to gross deficiency and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards cost to this proceedings.
1. The case of the complainants are briefly as follows:
The complainant purchased an electric bike from the first opposite party for Rs.35,669/- on 12.10.2009. The fourth opposite party is the manufacturer of the said vehicle. The warranty is 12 months for this vehicle and a period of 6 months for the battery, from the date of purchase of vehicle. The complainant alleged that only for 3 months from the date of purchase of the said vehicle worked properly. Thereafter there was charging problem. Immediately the complainant bought to the knowledge of the second opposite party, when the second opposite party referred the matter to third opposite party for proper service. But the defect was not rectified by third opposite party. hence again the complainant approached the first opposite party, who replaced only one battery out of 4 batteries. That one battery did not function properly. On repeated request of the complainant of the first opposite party, to get back the defective vehicle, which is being kept by the second opposite party and refund the cost of the vehicle. Inspite of several services, within the warranty period the said bike did not function properly. Finally the complainant handed over the said vehicle to the custody of the second opposite party on 23.08.2010 for service. But there was no proper result on reply to date. The purpose in which the electric bike was purchased was to save fuel expenses, but the complainant’s purpose ended in vain. Further the complainant has spent a lot of money for the purpose of travel due to defect of said bike. Due to the aforesaid act of the opposite party, the complainant had suffered a lot of mental agony, mental pressure, and lost his peaceful mind. The said defect is a manufacturing defect by nature and came cannot be rectified by during only the service, except changing all the four batteries with new batteries. Hence this complaint.
2. The written version filed by opposite parties 1, 2 & 3 as follows:
The opposite parties denied entire allegation mentioned in the complaint. Further the complainant has not followed the guidelines as mentioned in the owner’s manual. The complainant has not properly maintained the vehicle. The complainant availed the service with satisfaction which clearly is revealed from the job card which is maintained by the opposite parties, Complainant has used his vehicle for more than 4879kms as on December 2010. Further he has not taken back his vehicle from the opposite party’s service centre, inspite of several remainders made to him over phone with an ulterior motive to gain commercially he refused to take delivery of the vehicle. The reason is best known to the complainant. After passing various tests and analysis and after Q.C test is found to be okay in all aspects, thereafter only complainant takes delivery of the new vehicle. There was no manufacturing defect and deficiency in service on part of this opposite party. and hence this complaint may be dismissed with cost.
3. Written version of fourth opposite party as follows:
It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the vehicle on 12.10.2009, and the warranty period for the said vehicle is 12 months and for the batteries 6 months from the date of purchase. In fact the complainant has used the vehicle extensively. The complainant was filed on or account 07.01.2011. Therefore it is clear that the complainant has filed the vehicle and batteries. Hence this complaint is barred by limitation. Even if the vehicle is repaired within the warranty period there is no obligation on the manufacturer or dealer to replace the vehicle. The complainant is totally misplaced and there is no manufacturing defect in the said vehicle. As per the warranty conditions the complainant is not entitled for replacement or refund of purchase price. At best if any component is bound to be defective then the opposite party shall replace the component only and not the vehicle. Replacement or repair of the parts is subject to condition that only those parts which prove to the satisfaction of the co to have a manufacturing defect will be repaired or replaced free of cost.
4. Proof affidavit of complainant was filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. Written argument of complainant filed. Proof affidavits of opposite parties were filed. Documents not filed. Written arguments of opposite parties not filed. Oral arguments of both sides heard.
5. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties 1 &2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the
complaint?
3. To what other relief, the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINT NO. 1&2: The complainant had purchased the Electric Bike from the first opposite party on 12.10.2009 for Rs.35,669/-. The said electric bike was manufactured by fourth opposite party. The warranty period for the said vehicle was 12 months and 6 months for batteries. The allegation of the complainant is that the said bike developed the charging problem within the warranty period. So immediately he approached the first opposite party for service. The first opposite party replaced one put of four batteries. But even after that the problem continued to persist. On 23.08.2010, he handed over the vehicle with the second opposite party for service. But till date they neither repaired the vehicle in whole some nor returned the vehicle. On the other hand the opposite party contented that the complainant used the vehicle extensively to the tune of 4,879 Kms as on December 2010 and further the complainant is barred by limitation. Even if the vehicle is within the warranty period the manufacturer is not liable to replace the vehicle, only the defective component will be repaired or replaced free of cost. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that since the vehicle developed problem within the warranty period the manufacture is liable to replace the vehicle with new one. On the other hand the counsel for opposite party contended that it is well settled law that as per the warranty condition the consumer is not entitled for replacement of the vehicle. At the most the defective spare parts or equipment can be repaired or replaced with the respective components.
7. In the present case complaint did not produce any evidence to establish that there was manufacturing defect in the aforesaid vehicle. On plain reading of the complainant of the written version we find that there is a charging. Overwhelm, that occurred within the warranty period which was not denied by the opposite parties, further we find that the opposite party replaced only one out of 4 batteries but after replacing the said battery the problem was not over. Again the complainant handed over the vehicle on 23.08.2010 with the second opposite party, with a specific request that all 4 batteries have to be replaced. Then the problem would not have occurred. In our view there is no need for technical expert in the present case because the only problem was non-functioning of the batteries. It is also an admitted fact that one of the battery is not functioning properly and is replaced. We are not convinced with the plea of opposite party that the warranty period for the battery is only for 6 months. Even within the warranty period of 6 months the charging unit developed the problem. It is pertinent to note the entire vehicle can run only with the support of the battery backup system. It is well known fact that when the battery backup system the entire system of the vehicle will stand sill and it would not run. Therefore, there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. When it is a reasonable expectation of the consumer, to use the vehicle for reasonable period at least for 12 months. When the battery was the lifeline for the vehicle, the battery developed a charging problem within 3 months from date of purchase, which is clearly shows that there is a inherent manufacturing defect in the charging unit including battery. So far, the foregoing reason we find that the case referred by the opposite parties are not applicable to the present case and the court is not bound by the opinion of an expert. When apparently there is a manufacturing defect. Hence these point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
8. Point No.3: As we have decided in point Nos. 1 and 2 that there is manufacturing defect. The fourth opposite party is hereby directed to refund Rs. 35,669/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Nine only) the cost of the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony, and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant within one month form the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization. As against the first, second, and third opposite parties this complaint is dismissed.
8. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The fourth opposite party is hereby directed to refund Rs. 35,669/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand Six Hundred and Sixty Nine only) the cost of the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony, and also to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization. As against the first, second, and third opposite parties this complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this 24th August 2022
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1.12-10-2009 dated Xerox copy of the ‘Teenz Electric Bike’ purchased bill.
Ex.A2. 27-08-2001 dated Xerox copy of the Gate pass.
Ex.A3. 30-11-2010 dated office copy of the legal notice with postal receipt.
Ex. A4. 03-12-2010 dated served postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A5. 03-12-2010 dated office copy of the Reorder notice.
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS: -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
