DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 418 of 2022.

 

1. Sri Krishna Paul,

S/O. Sri Kamal Paul,

Netaji Colony, Jogendranagar,

P.S.-East Agartala,

P.O.-Jogendra Nagar, Pin-799004,

Dist. West Tripura....................…....…...........................Complainant.

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. The Proprietor, 

Chandrapur TaTa Motors opposite /

Exide NEO GREEN YODYOG,

P.O.-Reshan Bagan, Pin-799008,

P.S.-East Agartala, 

Dist.-West Tripura

 

2. The Manager,

Chandrapur Tata Motors opposite / 

Exide NEO GREEN YODYOG,

P.O.-Reshan Bagan, Pin-799008,

P.S.-East Agartala, 

Dist.-West Tripura.…................................................Opposite Parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the O.P. : None appeared. 

 

 

F I N A L     O R D E R

Sri Krishna Paul, herein after called the Complainant, has filed this complaint alleging inter alia that he purchased one “E-RICKSHAW” from GREEN YODYOG showroom at Rasham Bagan, Agartala. On 20/02/2020 taking loan from Central Bank of India for an amount of Rs.1,95,038/- for earning his livelihood.

2. In the month of June, 2022 the battery of E-RICKSHAW stop functioning as such he contacted to the O.P. No.2 who replaced the battery. 

3. In the month of August, 2022 the battery again stopped functioning as such the Complainant contacted to the Manager of O.P. No.2 who refused to replace the battery. Although there was warranty period in respect of Battery. Hence, this case.           

Summon was issued upon the O.Ps. but in spite of receiving summon the O.Ps. failed to appear to contest the case as such vide order dated 31/03/2023, the case has been proceeding ex-parte against the O.Ps.

5.  The Complainant has submitted evidence on affidavit along with documents.         

6.  The following points are taken up for discussion and decision:

    (i). Whether the O.P. No.2 has failed to replace the battery during the warranty period?   

  (ii).  Whether the O.Ps. are liable to pay compensation and if so to extent?    

7. Heard argument of the Complainant.     

8.     All the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.   

9.  From the quotation of O.P. No.2 it appears that the O.P. No.2 recommended the Central Bank of India to provide loan to the Complainant for purchasing E-RICKSHAW namely VICTORY-VIKRANT with three years warranty of battery. From the cash memo of O.P. No.2 dated 20/02/2020 it appears that the O.P. No.2 received a sum of Rs.1,95,038/- including GST from the Complainant and the warranty of the battery was three years. 

11. From the complaint petition it is clear that the battery stopped functioning in the month of June, 2022 which was replaced by O.P. No.2 and again in the month of August, 2022 the said battery stopped functioning and this time the O.P. No.2 refused to replace the battery, in spite of the fact that the warranty period of three years was not over. Therefore, the O.P. No.2 adopted unfair trade practice as such guilty of deficiency in service. 

12. Due to such deficiency in service the Complainant had to suffer financial crisis as he had to stop plying his E-RICKSHAW. However, we do not find the actual price of the battery which was included in the total amount of Rs.1,95,038/- as voucher was issued by the O.P. No.2. Consequently, we find it appropriate to direct the O.P. No.2 to pay some money for non-replacing the battery along with compensation to the Complainant.                 

      All the points are decided accordingly.       

13. In the result, it is directed that the O.P. No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant for non-replacing the battery within the warranty period and further sum of Rs.30,000/- to the Complainant for causing loss in his day to day earning.  O.P. No.2 also liable to pay further sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost to the Complainant. In total the O.P. No.2 shall pay of Rs.45,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from today,  failing which this amount shall carry interest @7.5% p.a. from today till the date of actual payment. 

        Supply two certified copies of this final order to the Complainant. 

      The Complainant shall send a copy of this final order to the O.P. No.2 by post for compliance of the O.P. No.2.  

  The case stands disposed off.              

 Announced.

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.