BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 259 of 2018
Date of Institution : 25.10.2018
Date of Decision : 14.05.2019
Anil Kumar aged about 42 years son of Shri Bhag Chand resident of 35A, Street No.2, Court Colony, Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
- (Tunwal) Maa Luxmi Auto, Opposite Hotel Aroma Inn, Dabwali Road, Sirsa through its authorized signatory.
- (Tunwal) Dabwali Autos, Authorized Distributor, opposite Water Works, Sirsa Road, Dabwali through its Authorized signatory.
- Tunwal E-Vehicle India Pvt.Ltd. Tunwal E-Bike India, E-83/91, Electronic GIDC Sector-26, Gandhi Nagar Gujrat (Manufacturer of Electric Two wheelers) through its Authorized signatory.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT
SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………… MEMBER
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh.Ajay Saini, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.P.K.Kocher, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he purchased a two wheeler electric product of Sports 63 (48V) from Op No.1 vide invoice No. GST/17-18/665 dated 23.02.2018 for a sum of Rs.37,000/-. At the time of purchase, the Op Nos. 1 & 2 claimed that the vehicle would give 55 km average on full single charge but the same is giving average of 30-35 km. The vehicle was having other problems as its head light, horn switch and seat cover lock were also not working properly after some days of its purchase. The complainant visited Op No.2 at Sirsa but he was left unattended and even no satisfactory service of the product was done. The complainant requested the Ops number of times to redress his grievance but to no avail. The act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, Ops appeared and filed their joint reply. It has been submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present complaint. The product in question being an electric two wheeler runs with battery and the average depends upon the conditions of the road, speed of the vehicle, load on the vehicle, conditions of the over bridges, power of battery, charging of the battery etc. There is no defect/manufacturing defect in the electric two wheeler and as and when the complainant made complaint regarding defect in the product, the same was attended. The Ops are still ready to check and remove the defect, if any, in the electric two wheeler and are also ready to repair the same as per warranty conditions. Other contentions have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. Thereafter, the parties have led their respective evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The complainant, in order to prove his case, has furnished his affidavit Ex.CA, in which, he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint qua the purchase of new electric two wheeler on 23.02.2018 from the Ops No.1 & 2, manufactured by Op No.3 for a sum of Rs.37,000/-. He has further deposed that as per the assurance given by the Ops, the two wheeler will surely give average of 55 km on full single charge of its battery atonce, but it only runs upto 30-35 kms. He has also deposed about certain defects in the two wheeler. The complainant has also placed on record the documents i.e. aadhar card Ex.C1, tax invoice Ex.C2, specifications of the two wheeler Ex.C3 copy of email Ex.C4. On the other hand, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh.Nishant Chawla, Ex.R1, in which he has deposed on the lines of the defence plea taken in the written statement. He has deposed that there is no manufacturing defect in the vehicle.
6. It is undisputed fact that the complainant has purchased a new electric two wheeler on 23.02.2018 from the Ops No.1 & 2, manufactured by Op No.3 for a valid consideration. As per the version of the complainant, the ops had assured the complainant that two wheeler will cover 55 kms on single charge of battery, but however, the vehicle is not giving the same average, which was assured by the OPs. Though, the complainant has alleged manufacturing defect in the vehicle and has claimed the replacement of the vehicle with new one, but however, the complainant has not placed on record any opinion of the expert qua any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in order to prove the allegations against the ops.
7. No doubt, it is the obligation of the ops to provide after sale service to the customer like complainant, in case if, there is any defect in the two wheeler, due to which, it is not giving any proper average/mileage then it became the duty of ops to carry out the necessary repair of the vehicle in order to redress the complaint of the complainant and make it defect free and also to have a good mileage, which has not been provided by the ops due to the reasons best known to them, which clearly amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
8. In view of the above discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the Ops to carry out necessary repair in the vehicle of the complainant, without any costs, and to make it defect free and also to have a good average/mileage. The Ops are further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:14.05.2019. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member Member
DCDRF, Sirsa DCDRF, Sirsa
