The complainant has filed this complaint alleging irremovable manufacturing defect in the E Rickshaw and thereby claiming replacement of the E Rickshaw and in the alternative, refund of m1y of Rs. 1,10,000/- paid by him towards cost of the vehicle along with further compensation of Rs. 1lac and cost of Rs.5000/- from O.P.No. 1 and 2. Facts in nutshell are as under... 2. The complainant purchased an E Rickshaw manufactured by O.P.No. 1 as per the pamphlet published by O.P. No. 1, from the outlet of O.P.No. 2. Copy of the pamphlet is filed on record at exhibit 10 as per list of documents dated 10. 3. 2017. The price of the E Rickshaw was Rs. 1,25,000/- out of which the complainant paid Rs. 20,000/- on 8.4. 2016 and further paid Rs. 90000/- on 10 4 2016. 3. The E Rickshaw was defective scenes its purchase. The mudguard of the E Rickshaw rubs against the tyres while plying the E Rickshaw and thus causes obstruction. Further the brakes of the E Rickshaw are defective since beginning. Hence on the complaint lodged by the complainant, OP No. 1 sent a Mechanic to complainant's place, who tried to rectify the defects. However the vehicle could not be repaired. After some period, the mechanic of O.P.No. 1 again tried to repair the vehicle but the defects could not be rectified. The complainant then time and again requested the O.P.No. 1 and 2 to either rectify the defects or to replace the vehicle. However there was no response from the O.Ps..Hence the complainant issued a legal notice to the O.P. through his advocate MrMarliwar of chandrapurdated 25. 7. 2016 but the O.P. failed to comply the notice. Hence the petition is filed. 4. The O.P.No. 1 filed its reply and thereby denied allegations against it. It Submitted that the O.P.No. 1 did not receive any amount as price of the E Rickshaw from the complainant. The O.P.No. 1 is not the manufacturer of E Rickshaw purchased by the complainant. The complainant has paid the price of E Rickshaw to O.P.No. 2 directly and hence there is no consumable interest between the complainant and O.P.No. 1. The O.P.No.1 is the manufacturer and seller of air coolers at Nagpur. However theO.P.No. 1 used to sale spare parts of E Rickshaw at the relevant time and the O.P.No. 2 is a regular purchaser of E Rickshaw spare parts from O.P.No. 1 . The O.P.No. 1 had supplied spare parts of E Rickshaw to O.P.No. 2 but the O.P.No. 2 failed to make payment of some of the spare parts. The O.P.No.1 reiterated that no transaction of sale and purchase of E Rickshaw entered into between complainant and O.P.No. 1 and the complainant has filed a false case against it. The O.P.No. 1 therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost. 5. Opposite Party No.2 failed to appear before this forum in spite of service of notice and hence the matter proceeded ex Parte against O.P.No. 2. 6. The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant has paid the price of Rs. 1,10, 000/- to the O.Ps. for purchase of E Rickshaw manufactured by O.P.No. 1 as per the pamphlet filed on record. The vehicle had manufacturing defect since its purchase and the O.P.No. 1 failed to repair or replace the vehicle despite several requests by the complainant. The complainant has filed on record evidence of an expert mechanic to prove that there are irremovable defects in the E Rickshaw sold by O.P.No. 1 and 2 to him. Therefore he prayed that the complaint may be decreed as prayed. 7. The counsel for O.P.No. 1 argued that there is no relation of consumer and seller between the complainant and O.P.No. 1. The complainant has filed evidence of an expert which he has obtained after three years from the purchase of E Rickshaw. Therefore, that document cannot be accepted as evidence. The O.P.No.1 is not the manufacturer of E Rickshawand he is only the supplier of spare parts of E Rickshaw. Hence the complaint has no merits and it deserves to be dismissed as against O.P.No. 1. 8. We have gone through the complaint, written statement, affidavits and the documents filed by the parties on record. Reasoning.. 9. The complainant has filed on record a pamphlet at exhibit No. 5/10 wherein specifications of Simba E Rickshaw manufactured by Wox Coolers, Nagpur are mentioned. It is further menti1d that sales and services of the E Rickshaw are available at O.P.No. 2 at Chandrapur. When a consumer purchases a product in response to the advertisement made through pamphlets, there is contract of quasi nature and therefore there is consumable interest of complainant with O.P.No. 1 and 2. 10. The copy of bill No. 704 filed at exhibit 5/2 clearly proves that E Rickshaw super deluxe model manufactured by OP No.1 was purchased by the complainant along with 4 Tata Company batteries by paying Rs. 1,05,000/- to O.P.No. 2. It is also admitted fact that mechanic of O.P.No. 1 visited the complainants place twice for carrying out repairs but the defects could not be rectified. Further the complainant has filed on record expert evidence of “Shree engineering works” at Chandrapur at exhibit 45 which clearly mentions that the defects in the e-rickshaw are irreparable. Thus it is proved that the defects in the vehicle are manufacturing defects and are irremovable. The complaint could not ply the vehicle due to inherent defect therein and thus sustained loss. The O.P.No. 1 fail to replace the vehicle or to refund its cost to the complaint despite repeated demand. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No. 1. There being manufacturing defect in the vehicle, O.P.No. 2 could not be fastened with any liability. In view of our observations as above we proceed to pass the following order.. ORDER - The complaint No.43/2017 is partly allowed.
- The Opposite Party No.1 shall refund amount of Rs.1,10,000/- i.e. the cost of the vehicle paid by the complainant.
- The Opposite Party No.2 shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony besides cost of proceeding of Rs.5000/-
| 
