C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/38
COMPLAINANT : Tapas Kr. Choudhury
S/o Late Ahingsa Choudhury
Vill. Barsatigola,
P.O. & P.S. Bhagawangola,
Dist. Murshidabad
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) The Manager,
LAP Automobiles
B-9, 283 (CA), P.O. & P.S. Kalyani,
Dist. Nadia, Pin – 741235
2) The Managing Director,
Standard Combines Pvt. Ltd.
Standard Chowk,
Barnala - 148101
Punjab (India).
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 7th February, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one E-Byke, model No. standard TDB (Green) motor No. 07.00421 at a price of Rs. 35,000/- on 09.08.08 from the show-room of the OP No. 1 which is situated at Kalyani, Dist. Nadia. It is his further case that after a few days of purchase, the hydraulic and horn switches became defective of the bike. So he met the OP No. 1 and requested him to repair those parts, but he did not do the same. Rather he asked the complainant to repair it with condition to pay the charge. The complainant repaired the same at his own cost, but no charge was paid by him. Again the battery of the said vehicle was defective after 4 months since the date of purchase which he informed to the OP No. 1 over telephone. As per the instruction of OP No. 1 the complainant met him at his show room along with the defective battery of the said vehicle and the job card. The OP No. 1 kept those things in his custody and stated that after repair the battery would be handed over to him. After few days when he visited the showroom of the OP No. 1, who intimated the complainant that the battery became OK and naturally the complainant took back the battery with him. On returning home he put the battery in the vehicle, but after a few days the battery became defective which he again intimated the OP No. 1 over telephone. The OP No. 1 instructed him to visit his showroom along with the defective battery. As per that he produced the battery before the OP No. 1 and after examining it the mechanic opined that the battery was defective and the same was out of repair, rather it should be changed. The OP No. 1 stated to him that after taking instruction from the Co. he would intimate him regarding replacement of the battery. The complainant time and again contacted with the OP No. 1 over telephone, but to no effect. So on 05.01.09 he sent a letter to the OP No. 1 stating his dificulty, but to no effect. Thereafter, he filed this case before the District Forum, Murshidabad which was dismissed on the jurisdiction ground and with the permission of that Forum he has filed this case praying for reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
On behalf of the OPs written version is filed, inter alia, stating that the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. They have denied all the material allegations of the petition of complaint. It is their specific case that the complainant purchased a motor bike from the OP No. 1 which is an electric vehicle and run by battery and servicing of the battery cannot be done from other local garage save and except the garage of the OPs. As per Co.’s manual the complainant is entitled to get free service from the garage of the Co. But the complainant never moved for any service of his vehicle within the warranty period of 180 days since the date of purchase. Even on receipt of the notice, dtd. 12.01.09 the OP Co. made servicing of the alleged vehicle and after said servicing by the OP on 04.02.09, the petitioner put his signature on the job card No. 192 on proper satisfaction. So there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence the case is not at all maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed against them.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that admittedly this complainant purchased one E-Bike (battery operated), model No. standard TDB (Green) and motor No. 07.00421 from the OP No. 1 on 09.08.08 from his showroom at a price of Rs. 35,000/-. From the documents it is also available that in Jan-09 the complainant intimated the OP No. 1 in writing regarding the defect of the motor cycle specially its battery, controller and charger which were produced before the OP No. 1 for repairing of the same. OP No. 1 by a letter dtd. 12.01.09 stated that the motor cycle was purchased from his showroom by the complainant and assured him that he would take step to solve the problem of the vehicle and he need not bother about as long as they stand by him. Accordingly those defective articles were repaired by him on 04.02.09 and the same were delivered to him also on that date which is available from the job card. These defective parts were repaired within the warranty period of 6 months since the date of purchase and no charge was taken by the OP No. 1 from the complainant. Complainant’s specific allegation is that prior to January, 09 the battery and the other parts became defective within 4 months since purchase which he intimated the OP No. 1 time and again over telephone, but he did not repair the same and after long persuasion in January, 09 the defective parts were produced before him for repair. It is not denied by the OPs also. But his allegation is that actually the repair was not a perfect one, as a result of which he could not use the motor cycle after placing the battery in the bike. OP has relied upon in the job card in which there is a printed column “Received E-Bike duly repaired to my entire satisfaction.” So he points out the clause and submits that the complainant being satisfied took up all the defective articles after proper repair by his mechanic one Pintu Kirtania. Naturally, after expiry of warranty period the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. Complainant’s specific contention is that though the defective parts were repaired by the OP No. 1, but actually not properly and those parts were not useable, as a result of which he failed to ply the motor bike after placing the battery in it. From this job card, we find the voltage of the battery was down and there was a problem in the controller and the charger. Regarding problem of controller and charger after repair nothing is agitated by the complainant. He again and again stated that the voltage of the battery remained still down after the alleged repair on 04.09.09 for which he failed to ply the motor cycle by using voltage down, i.e., the battery in it. The complainant has filed his evidence as PW-1 and OP has filed evidence as OPW-1 in this case. We have gone through the oral evidences laid by the parties carefully. The complainant has categorically stated in his examination-in-chief as well as reply of interrogatories that the E-Bike was never produced before the OP for servicing and so no question of satisfaction regarding delivery of the articles after repair to him does arise. On the other hand, the OP has stated in his examination-in-chief that the condition of the vehicle became bad due to rush and negligent driving and for non-servicing by the complainant though he was entitled to get free service from the OP, 3 times during the warranty period. Regarding free service no whisper is made by the complainant in his petition of complaint that he took free service at any point of time from the OP with regard to his vehicle. In the job card also nothing is mentioned about giving of free service to the bike of the complainant by this OP No. 1. However the complainant has not claimed any free service in his petition of complaint, but he has categorically agitated about the supply of defective battery by the OP No. 1, as a result of which he failed to ply the bike. That is why, he has prayed for returning the entire price money of the vehicle to him.
On a careful examination of both the oral and the documentary evidences laid by the parties, it is established that the complainant purchased one E-Bike from the OP No. 1 on 09.08.09 at a price of Rs. 35000/-. It is also established that within a short period after purchase and within the warranty period the battery, charger and controller of the bike became defective due to which the complainant failed to ply his bike. For repair the OP No. 1 took the battery, controller and the charger from the complainant mentioning respective problems on the job card and he repaired those defects by his mechanic one Pintu Kirtania and thereafter he delivered those repaired parts to the complainant on 04.02.09. There is no submission on the side of the OP that after repair all the parts were placed in the bike and he found the bike in OK condition. Even there is no test report of the mechanic of the OP to the extent that the parts were repaired with full satisfaction. The complainant is not an expert person. The mere recitals in the job card regarding “Received E-Bike duly repaired to my entire satisfaction” does not prove that the OP No. 1 repaired the defective battery and the other two parts with full satisfaction to the complainant as we have already discussed that those parts were not tested after placing the same in the bike by the mechanic of the OP. Even the mechanic, Pintu Kirtania has not filed any examination-in-chief in this case supporting the contention of the OP No 1.
In view of the above discussions and considering the facts of this case, our considered view is that the defective parts, i.e., controller, charger and specially the battery were not properly repaired by the mechanic of the OP due to which the complainant failed to ply his bike after placing the repaired battery in his vehicle. Practically, the battery had inherent defect due to which the mechanic could not repair the same properly and also failed to make those usable. It is the duty of the OP No. 1 to repair the said battery properly which he did not do actually. This is a great deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 undoubtedly. Considering all these we do also hold that the complainant has become able to prove his case. So he is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/38 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs. The complainant is entitled to get a decree of Rs. 8,000/- as price of battery from the OP No. 1. He is also entitled to get compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for the harassment and mental agony caused to him along with litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The OP is directed to make payment of the decretal amount of Rs. 8,000/- plus Rs. 3,000/- plus Rs. 1,000/-, in total Rs. 12,000/- to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
