Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/286/2013

A.Radhakrishnan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

TI Cycles of India & BSA Motors, - Opp.Party(s)

David George

20 Nov 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 05.09.2013

                                                                          Date of Order : 20.11.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.286/2013

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

                                 

A. Radhakrishnan,

S/o. Mr. S. Arumugam,

New No.6, Old No.5-B,

Sundaresan Street,

Sri Chakra Nagar,

Mangadu,

Chennai – 600 122.                                                        .. Complainant.                                                   

 

         ..Versus..

1. The Manager,

TI Cycles of India & BSA Motors,

Unit of Tube Investments of India Ltd.,

No.60, Sivasamy Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

2. TI Cycles of India & BSA Motors,

No.234, NSC Bose Road,

Dare House,

Chennai – 600 001.

 

3. BSA Motors,

(A Unit of Tube Investments of India Ltd.),

Post Bag No.5, M.T.H. Road,

Ambattur,

Chennai – 600 053.                                                ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                  :  M/s. David George

Counsel for 3^rd opposite party         :  M/s. G. Baskar

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2  :  Exparte

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to provide a new vehicle of E-Scooter/800 Roamer Plus with one year warrantee to the complainant or to refund a sum of Rs.40,243/- towards the cost price of the vehicle, to refund the expenditure of a sum of Rs.30,000/- for rectifying the manufacturing defect of the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practice to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he has purchased E-Scooter/800 namely Roamer Plus on 20.03.2010 from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.36,600/-.  The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.3,243/- to the 1^st opposite party towards insurance.   The complainant submits that the opposite parties has not provided insurance cover and vehicle record after due registration.  The complainant submits that the opposite parties promised that the vehicle shall give 50 kms mileage after one full complete charge.   But the vehicle gave only 25 kms for full charge.  The complainant sent a letter dated:08.11.2010 in full detail for which, the opposite parties has not sent any reply.   The complainant submits that while using the vehicle it stopped suddenly on the middle of the road creating life and death situation.   Hence, the complainant replaced the battery.   The complainant also replaced a new motor on 19.02.2011.   The complainant submits that on 08.11.2011, the complainant issued a letter to the 3^rd opposite party chairman stating all the facts in detail and the amount expended towards service charges, replace of battery and motor etc.   The complainant submits that on 26.12.2011, the 3^rd opposite party sent a reply stating that none of the details regarding the purchase of the battery was furnished.  The complainant submits that since there is no response on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant issued notice dated:25.07.2013 for which, the opposite parties issued an evasive reply.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.  Hence the complaint is filed.

2.     In spite of receipt of notice, the opposite parties 1 & 2 has not chosen to appear before this Forum and hence, the opposite parties 1 & 2 were set Exparte.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  3^rd opposite party is as follows:

The 3^rd opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The 3^rd opposite party states that the 1^st opposite party is a dealer of the opposite parties 2 & 3.   Now, the 3^rd opposite party has closed dealership from the opposite parties 2 & 3 and so the 3^rd opposite party never knew when the complainant has approached the 1^st opposite party and on which date the battery was replaced and the complainant has not mentioned the date of replacement of the battery.   The 3^rd opposite party states that the warranty period for the battery is only for 6 months from the date of purchase.   Hence, the opposite parties refused to change the battery at free of cost after the warranty period.   The 3^rd opposite party states that there is no documentary or expert evidence to show that the vehicle shall give mileage of 50 KM after a one full complete charge.   The 3^rd opposite party states that there is no documentary evidence to show that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect within the warranty period.  Hence, there is no question of replacing a new vehicle or refund of his money.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 3^rd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 are marked.  The 3^rd opposite party after filing his written version has not come forward to file proof affidavit to prove the averments raised in the written version.   Hence the proof affidavit of the 3^rd opposite party is closed.

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled a sum of Rs.40,243/- towards the cost of the vehicle and another sum of Rs.30,000/- expenses towards rectifying the manufacturing defect or alternatively provide a new vehicle of E-Scooter/800 Roamer Plus as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, unfair trade practice  with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The opposite parties 1 & 2 remained Exparte.  The 3^rd opposite party filed his written version and has not come forward to file proof affidavit to prove the averments raised in the written version.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel.   Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.    The complainant pleaded and contended that he has purchased E-Scooter/800 namely Roamer Plus on 20.03.2010 from the 1^st opposite party for a sum of Rs.36,600/- as per Ex.A1, Invoice.  The complainant also paid a sum of Rs.3,243/- to the 1^st opposite party towards insurance as per Ex.A2.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties has not provided insurance cover and vehicle record after due registration.  But there is no evidence on record.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties promised that the vehicle shall give 50 kms mileage after one full complete charge.   But the vehicle gave only 25 kms for full charge.  The complainant sent a letter dated:08.11.2010 as per Ex.A3 to that effect in full detail for which, the opposite parties has not sent any reply.   

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that while using the vehicle it stopped suddenly on the middle of the road creating life and death situation.   The complainant is compelled to push the vehicle to the bank of the road caused great hardship and mental agony.   Hence the complainant was constrained to replace the battery.   The complainant also replaced a new motor on 19.02.2011.   But on careful perusal of records, the complainant has not produced any document to show the purchase of new battery or new motor except Ex.A4, customer data, Ex.A5 receipt for a sum of Rs.500/-.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 08.11.2011, the complainant issued a letter to the 3^rd opposite party chairman stating all the facts in detail and the amount expended towards service charges, replacement of battery and motor etc.  But on a careful of perusal of entire records, the complainant  has not produced any receipt for the purchase of battery and motor or replacement of battery and motor to the said vehicle.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 26.12.2011, the 3^rd opposite party sent a reply as per Ex.A8 stating that none of the details regarding the purchase of the battery was furnished.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the since there is no response on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant was constrained to issue notice dated:25.07.2013 for which, the opposite parties issued an evasive reply.  The complainant filed this case for claiming compensation and cost.

8.     The complainant further contented that the 3^rd opposite party even after filing of written version stating that he is not aware of the defective nature of the vehicle and attempts made for service; is not acceptable.   Further the contention of the 3^rd opposite party is that the 1^st opposite party is a dealer of the opposite parties 2 & 3 also has nothing to do with that.    But on a careful perusal of records, the complainant has not pleaded and proved any manufacturing defect except default in battery.  The complainant also has not produced any document to prove that he has changed or replaced the battery and the motor also.  Considering the facts and circumstances this case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally shall repair the complaint mentioned vehicle on production of the vehicle by the complainant within one month at free of cost failing which, the opposite parties 1 to 3 shall pay a sum of Rs.36,600/- being the cost price of the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to repair the complaint mentioned vehicle on production of the vehicle by the complainant within one month at free of cost, failing which, the opposite parties 1 to 3 shall pay a sum of Rs.36,600/- (Rupees Thirty six thousand and six hundred only) being the cost price of the vehicle and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant. 

The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 20^th day of November 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                            PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	20.03.2010	Copy of invoice
Ex.A2	20.03.2010	Copy of payment receipt issued for insurance
Ex.A3	08.11.2010	Copy of letter sent to the respondents
Ex.A4	09.11.2010	Copy of warranty card of New Battery purchase
Ex.A5	24.11.2010	Copy of Service Delivery Challan
Ex.A6	08.11.2011	Copy of complaint sent to the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A7	19.12.2011	Copy of reminder sent to the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A8	26.12.2011	Copy of reply letter sent by the 3rd opposite party
Ex.A9		Copy of acknowledgement of the opposite parties for the complaints sent by the complainant
Ex.A10	25.07.2013	Copy of legal notice sent to the opposite parties
Ex.A11		Copy of reply sent by the 3rd opposite party

 

3^RD OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NO PROOF AFFIDAVIT - Closed

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                            PRESIDENT