Delhi

North East

CC/385/2022

Sant Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

TVS Motor Company Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Mar 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.385/22

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Sant Ram S/o Sh. Deep Chand, R/o 29/11, Babarpur Road, Azad Dairy, Shahdara Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
	The Country Head, TVS Motor Company Ltd., Post Box No. 4, Harita, Hosur, Karnataka 635109 Also at: Binsar TVS Motors, 954-E, 100 Foota Road, Babarpur Extension, Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

07.10.2022 12.12.2023 13.03.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 14.10.2021, the Complainant had purchased an electric scooty model TVS IQUBE Electric, bearing registration no. DL 5GD 0578 from the dealer of Opposite Party for a sum of Rs. 1,21,500/-.  Complainant stated that from January 2022, the said scooty had continuous fault and Complainant visited the dealer of Opposite Party to rectify the fault and in every visit the Complainant had to leave the scooty at the workshop for 20-25 days in the month. Complainant stated that in the past 5-6 months, most of the time the scooty had been at the workshop either for the fault of the charger which had blown up for the past 8-10 times.  Complainant visited the workshop of the Opposite Party for getting a new charger and they told that around 50-60 chargers were pending prior to the replaced. Complainant stated that at the time of purchase of the said scooty it was assured that it would take around 3 hours to charge the battery full whereas the battery was charged firstly in 5-6 hours and after that it would take more than 6 hours. Complainant stated that the company had also promised to supply the footrest as well as the main stand which were they had not supplied after the several request and demand till date. Complainant stated that at the time of driving the said scooty there was a constant noise which was coming from the wheel of the scooty and the workshop had no solution for this. His case is that apart from the other faults the said scooty was not started when it rain. Complainant also sent a legal notice on 02.08.2022 to Opposite Party. Complainant stated that at the time of filing the present complaint the scooty was still lying at the service centre with remarks i.e. the charger of the scooty was faulty and one month is needed to get it repaired. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 1,21,500/- i.e. the cost of the scooty and Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 24 % p.a.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 31.01.2023.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased an electric scooty from the Opposite Party and after few months of its purchase it started troubling. It is his case that as the Complainant is layman and as such he was not able to identify what exactly was the fault in the scooty. His case is that he had been visiting the Opposite Party for rectification of the fault but nothing was done. His case is that there is some problem regarding charge/charging of the battery.
5. The case of the Complainant is that he has purchased a scooty from the Opposite Party on 14.10.2021. He has not filed any document on record nor any evidence to show that till when the said scooty was under warranty/guarantee. Further, it is to be noted that the Complainant himself says that being a layman he was not able to identify the fault which was there in the scooty. The Complainant has filed on record the service labour invoice dated 21.10.2022 and 04.11.2023. Even the job card dated 04.11.2023 does not show any fault in the scooty and the same shows that only routine service was done on the said date. The Complainant has not led any evidence as to exactly what was the fault in the scooty or that the said fault surfaced during the guarantee/warranty period.
6. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed.  
7. Order announced on 13.03.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)