Haryana

Ambala

CC/315/2018

Varun Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

17 Sep 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No. : 315 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution    :   26.09.2018.

                                                          Date of decision       :   17.09.2019.

 

Varun Bansal s/o Shri Ram Gopal Bansal, r/o H.No.1663/15, Mahavir Nagar, Ambala City.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                                  Versus

 

1. Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. 50 Okhla Phase -3, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, Delhi-110020.
2. Suraj Agencies, 116-1/3, Opp. Capital Cinema Road, near G.M.N. College, Ambala Cantt.
3. Darshan Cycles, Show Room No.401, Sec-37D, Chandigarh.

 

           ..…..Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.         

                                                

Present:       Complainant in person.

Shri Shubham Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.

                   Shri Vaibhav Gaba, Authorized Rep. for the OP No.3.

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To pay Rs.39,290/- or replace the vehicle.
2. To pay Rs.35,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses.

 

Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased a Hero Electric Scooty model NYX on 17.11.2016 through Paytm with delivery charges of Rs.300/-. The said vehicle was having many manufacturing defects and in this regard, he complained to the company dealer at Suraj Agencies, Ambala Cantt. The battery of vehicle became defective regularly and he reported this issue in April 2017 and the same was replaced on 17.05.2017 by the service agency. Just after five months of purchase of vehicle, it became defective through the OPs stated that the same will work at least two years. The batteries got faulty and replaced on 15.08.2017 i.e. just in 3 months of last replaced. It again became faulty in November 2017 and the same was checked on 04^th November by the dealer and reported that its producing 17Ah and 35-38 KM running in test drive. The charger also got faulty two times and still not working properly. The company claims it up to 70 KM in one charge, which was never actually resulted. He asked the company to check it for other defects as batteries do not last prescribed life, but the company refused to do so. He claimed for its electrical speedometer and tyre tube also got puncture without any external puncturing thing and creating problems again and again. The company had finally discontinued the product, which clearly indicates that this product has a lot of manufacturing defects, but the complainant is suffering till now. In their reply to the notice, the company admitted that life of batteries remained 25% during the warranty period. No set of batteries lasted even for full warranty period. Company agreed that again and again its batteries had gone faulty. This product must be replaced or its cost must be refunded, but the company denied the same. This way, the OPs are deficient in providing the services. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version and raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability and locus-standi. On merits, it is submitted that it is emphatically denied that the product has multiple manufacturing defects. The OP No.1 did not sell the product which was having manufacturing defect and the appropriate Government did not approve the same. The complainant visited with the OP on 04.11.2017 and its competent engineer checked the batteries panel and the AH reading was as per company norms. In order to satisfy the complainant, the vehicle was checked on road and the mileage was 38 KM and then also 25% battery was remaining, therefore, it was clear that the vehicle was in good condition and fulfil all the norms and there was no mileage issue. The average of the vehicle per charge depends on number of factors like weight being carried, frequency of breaks, condition of roads, traffic congestion etc. and due to the presence of these factors the average has to be low. The engineer of OPs checked the complete vehicle and no problem of any kind were found in it. There is no deficiency on their part and the complaint filed against them, may be dismissed with costs.

                    Upon notice, the authorized representative appeared for the OP No.3 and filed the reply stating therein that Mr. Varun Bansal s/o Shri Ram Gopal Bansal, r/o H.No.1663/15, Mahavir Nagar, Ambala City, Ambala had taken the delivery of Hero Electric Scooter model namely NYX bearing Chassis No.NYX16J0219 on 17.11.2016 from his showroom No.401, Sector-37D, Chandigarh after making online payment through Paytm. The vehicle was delivered in best condition after performing valid pre-delivery. The OP No.3 had never received any complaint from the complainant regarding the performance of the E-bike nor had received the above said electric scooter for servicing at his showroom.

3.                The complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 tendered affidavit of Shri Vaneet Khetarpal, Senior Engineer, Hero Electric Vehicles Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi as Annexure OP/A alongwith documents Annexure OP1/1 to OP1/4 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.1 & 2. However, the OP No.3 has not filed any evidence, rather its representative made a statement that the evidence tendered by the OP No.1 may be read as evidence on their behalf.

4.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP No.1 as well as Authorized Rep for the OPs No.2 & 3 and carefully gone through the case file.    

5.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased the Hero Electric Scooty model NYX vide bill dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure C-4). The complainant has argued that the batteries of the said vehicle became defective time and again and the same was replaced from the OPs. The charger also got faulty two times and still not working properly. He further argued that the company had finally discontinued the product, which clearly indicates that this product has a lot of manufacturing defects, but the complainant was suffering till now. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has argued that there was no manufacturing defects in the product. On 04.11.2017, the complainant visited with the OP and its competent engineer checked the batteries panel and the AH reading was as per company norms. In order to satisfy the complainant, the vehicle was checked on road and the mileage was 38 KM and then also 25% battery was remaining and there was no mileage issue. He further argued that the average of the vehicle per charge depends on number of factors like weight being carried, frequency of breaks, condition of roads, traffic congestion etc. and due to the presence of these factors the average has to be low. He further argued that the OPs No.1 & 2 is still ready to resolve the grievance of the complainant, if any. However, the contention of the complainant that the product in question was having a lot of manufacturing defects, has no force, because, the complainant has not produced any such evidence on the case file, on the basis of which, it can be said that there was any manufacturing defect in the scooty in question. On perusal of copy of emails of various dates communicated between the complainant and representative of OP No.1, it is clear that the OPs checked the vehicle and found it accurate and further suggested the complainant to visit their dealer, if he has any other issue. Moreover, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 has pleaded that they are ready to resolve the grievance of the complainant, if any, as per warranty policy. Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has also not produced any such evidence on the case file, on the basis of which, it can be said that the OP No.1 refused to resolve his grievance.

5.                Taking these facts into consideration, the OP No.1 cannot be said to be deficient in providing the services to the complainant. However, in the interest of justice, we order that the complainant shall contact the OP No.1, who will rectify the defects of the vehicle in question, free of costs. The complaint is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 17.09.2019.

 

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

      Member                            Member                       President