Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/285/2024

ANITA SOOD - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S GO GREEN BIKES PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

04 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/285/2024
Date of Institution	:	7/6/2024
Date of Decision	:	4/11/2024

 

Anita Sood wife of Sh. Sandeep Kumar, aged about 40 years, resident of House No. 3985, Sector 25-D,Chandigarh.

...Complainant

Versus

 

 

1. M/s Go Green Bikes Private Limited, SCO No. 37, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh through its Managing Director..

2. M/s Hero Electric Vehicle Private Limited, # 57, Udyog Vihar, Phase IV, Sector 18, Gurugram Haryana -122015 through its Managing Director

 

...Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for complainant
	:	OPs exparte.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that on 29.3.2023 the representative of OP No.1 explained the feature of Electric Scooter being manufactured by OP No.2 and insisted the complainant to purchase  the electric scooter. On the assurances of OP No.1 the complainant purchased a  POTON LP Electric Scooter (hereinafter referred to subject electric scooter) for a total sale consideration of Rs.93,000/- from the  OP No.1 and the said payment was made by the complainant through Gpay  on 29.3.2023 which included price of the subject electric scooter, insurance and registration charges etc.  Copies of payment receipt and invoice are annexed as Annexure C-1 to C-3.  The subject electric scooter was having three years warranty and the copy of warranty card is annexed as Annexure C-4. The subject scooter was also got insured by the complainant on the directions of the OP No.1 and the copy of insurance policy certificate is annexed as Annexure C-5. At the time of delivery of the subject electric scooter, the OP No.1 had not provided internal dicky cover and put a jute hag to cover the battery and despite several request by the complainant the same was not provided by the OPs.  It is further alleged that immediately after purchase, the subject electric scooter   started giving problem as it started running automatically, which means no speed control by the brakes.  For the rectification of the aforesaid defect, the complainant visited the workshop of OP No.1 and the said defect was removed  by the OP No.1. In the month of June  2023 the main lock of the subject electric scooter    again started giving problem  and the complainant approached  the OP No.1,  and it was informed to the complainant that no lock was available, on 26.7.2023 but later on  the OP No.1 replaced the said lock  and did not issue any job sheet instead had given in writing that lock set replaced within warranty period. After replacement of the main lock there was another problem with brakes wire was noticed which was dual in nature and after one month later the said defect was removed by the OP No.1. Again in the month of December 2023 it was found that the motor of the subject electric scooter was not working as a  result of which the complainant was not able to utilize the subject electric scooter.  Thereafter the complainant took the subject electric scooter to the workshop of OP No.1  on 15.12.2023 and after inspection of the subject electric scooter, the OP No.1 could not remove the defect. It was assured that the defect will be removed. However, since the said defect has not been removed  by the OPs till date and the complainant is not able to use the subject electric scooter, she is suffering a lot.  Thereafter again the complainant approached the OPs on 27.4.2024  with the request to provide complete details and history of the vehicle as the OPs have also failed to provide job sheet to the complainant  and only hand written details Annexure C-8 was given to the complainant. When the OP No.1 failed to resolve the issue, the complainant sent email Annexure C-9 which was replied by the Ops vide email Annexure C-10. It is alleged that the officials of the OP No.1 assured the complainant that issue will be resolved within 45 days but the OP No.1 has failed to remove the defect. The complainant has submitted all the requisite documents to the Ops through email Annexure C-11 and in response to the said email the OP had sent email Annexure C-12. It is alleged that the subject electric scooter is having manufacturing defect and the Ops are bound to repair/replace the defective parts and in case repair is not possible then to replace the defective scooter. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. OPs  were properly served and when OPs did not turn up before this Commission, despite proper service, they were proceeded against ex-parte on 1.7.2024.

2. In order to prove her claim the complainant has tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the  complainant that the OP No.1 has sold the subject electric scooter manufactured by the OP No.2 to the complainant  on 29.3.2023 for sale consideration of Rs.86,391/-  as is also evident from tax invoice Annexure C-3  and after purchase certain defects were noticed in the subject electric scooter as it started running automatically  and in the month of June 2023 the main lock of the subject electric scooter was found defective and thereafter brake wire was damaged and the said  defects were brought to the notice of OP No.1 which were removed and later on in December 2023, the motor of the subject electric scooter  ceased to work  and the said defect has not been removed by the OPs despite of repeated request by the complainant and also that the internal dicky cover was not provided  by the OPs, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for and for that purpose the  documentary evidence led by the complainant is required to be scan carefully.
   2. Admittedly some minor defects were noticed by the complainant after purchase of  the subject electric scooter with respect of non providing of dicky cover and the subject electric scooter running automatically with no speed control by brakes  and problem of main lock and damage of brake wire   and whenever the complainant reported the matter to the OPs, the subject defects  were removed by OP No.1 but that too with repeated requests of the complainant. 
   3. The main grouse of the complainant in the present complaint is that the motor of the subject electric scooter stopped working in the month of December 2023 and thereafter he visited the workshop of OP No.1 on 15.12.2023 but despite of inspection and checking of the subject electric scooter, the OP No.1 did not remove the defect and as the subject electric scooter is having inherent manufacturing  defect,  the complainant sought refund of the price of the subject electric scooter alongiwith compensation. However in para 17 of the complaint the complainant had alleged  that as the subject electric scooter  was suffering from manufacturing defect  thus as per law the OPs are bound to repair/replace the defective parts  and in case repair is not possible in that situation to replace the defective  scooter with new one which itself indicates that in the prayer clause complainant has sought relief of refund of the price of the subject electric scooter which is contrary to his pleadings in para 17 of the complaint itself, which are reproduced as under:-

“17. That in view of the above submission it is submitted that scooter is suffering from manufacturing defects, thus as per the law opposite parties are to bound repair/replace the defective parts, in case repair is not possible in that situation to replace the defective scooter with new one. But in the present matter despite repeated request opposite parties failed to do the needful.”

 

4. In order to prove the manufacturing defect in the subject electric scooter, onus is heavily lies upon the complainant by proving on record that the subject electric scooter is having inherent manufacturing defect and the same cannot be cured by repair or replacement of defective parts.  To prove his version the complainant is required to prove the manufacturing defect in the subject electric scooter with the help  of some expert reports who could be the best person to give his opinion about the inherent manufacturing defect after inspecting the subject electric scooter which has not been done by the complainant in the present case as the complainant has only made allegations in the complaint by mentioning one sentence that the subject electric scooter is suffering from inherent manufacturing defect without proving the same with the help of expert report.
5. In view of the foregoing discussion, one thing is clear that the complainant  has failed to prove on record  that the subject electric scooter has  inherent manufacturing defect.
6. However as it has come on record that due to some defect in the motor of the subject electric scooter, the same is not in working condition and further when it has come on record that the complainant has purchased the subject electric scooter on 29.3.2023 as is evident from invoice Annexure C-3 and also that the complainant has failed to prove on record that there is manufacturing defect in the subject electric scooter in the light of the  ratio of law laid by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission in various judgments,   we are of the opinion that the since the subject electric scooter was under warranty when the  defect has occurred, it is the obligation of the OPs to repair or replace  the defective parts in the subject electric scooter instead of replacing the scooter or refund its price to the complainant  especially when the defect of motor occurred after 9 months of purchase of the subject electric scooter and the said defect was not noticed prior to that. Thus the OPs are only liable to repair/replace the defective part of the subject electric scooter and thereby make the same functional.  
7. The Hon’ble Apex court in Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & anr. II(2006)CPJ 3(SC)  held as under:-

“J & K Consumer Protection Act, 1988 Section 17 Motor Vehicles Manufacturing defects-improper  functioning of clutch- Warranty, obligation - Defect continued even on first service- Downing of engine necessary to trace problem - Complainant objected, did not brought vehicle for aforesaid purpose- Request for replacement of car having manufacturing defects- Obligation of respondents under warranty only to repair or replace any part found to be defective-Necessary repairs and replacement of components carried out free of charges during warranty period - Not a case of silence of contract of sale as to warranty High Court not justified in directing replacement of vehicle - Replacement of defective part i.e. clutches assembly directed - Consolidated sum of Rs. 50,000 for cost of travel to Karnal, for wrongly advised by appellant, awarded.”

8.  Similarly the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Hyundai Motor India Ltd. vs. Er. Gopal K. Sahi & anr. III(2009) CPJ 131 (NC) held as under:-

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Sections 14(1)(d), 21(b) - Motor Vehicles Defective- Transit damaged, repaired car sold- No problem in car reported for almost 16 months- Car developed corrosion, reported after 20 months- As per settled law, manufacturer need not replace car, only defective parts required to be replaced -Vehicle used for 4½ years Corrosion developed due to defect and poor quality of sheet surface before painting proved by expert reports produced on record Complainant can be compensated for replacement of defective sheet of vehicle- State Commission not justified in ordering return of vehicle and awarding huge uncalled for amount Complainant himself responsible for not sending vehicle for removal of defects Excessive reliefs granted by State Commission withou. justification - Complainant held entitled to lump sum compensation of Rs. 1,00,000.”

9.  Further the Hon’ble National Commission in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. vs. B.G. ThakurDesai & anr. II(1993) CPJ 225(NC)  held as under:-

“(1) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sec- tion 14(1)(a) - Defect - Jeep - Complainant pur- chased jeep from O.P. Defect in engine - En- gine replaced by O.P. Complaint filed for re- placement of jeep - When defect removed whether entitled for replacement? (No).

Held: If a consumer purchases some
machi-nery and some part of it is found having manufacturing defect and that part can be replaced then it will be very prejudicial to the interest of the Manufacturer if he is asked to replace the whole machinery without sufficient cause.”

 

10. In view of the foregoing discussion and ration of law laid down in the afore-extracted judgments, it is safe to hold that the complaint is liable to be partly allowed  as there is deficiency on the part of the OPs to the extent that they failed to cure the defect of the subject electric scooter.

 

4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-
   1.  to repair/replace the defective part i.e. motor of the subject electric scooter free of cost and make it functional.
   2.  to pay a lump-sum amount of ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and a towards cost of litigation ;
5. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days till realisation, apart from compliance of direction at Sr. No.(i).
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/11/2024 mp			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member