BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.425 of 2019.
Date of institution: 11.12.2019.
Date of decision:02.02.2022.
Ramesh Chand Veram, aged 60 years S/o Pritam Singh, resident of Gali No.1, Ward No.2, Arjun Nagar, Kaithal (Mob.No.94163-11667).
…Complainant.
Versus
- M/s. S.M.Motors, Siwan Gate, Opposite Bijli Ghar, Kaithal through its Proprietor Sh. Mohit Chawla son of Sh. Chattar Pal Chawla, Mob.No.92539-58000.
- Ceeon India, G-1017, Corporate Office, Industrial Area, Narela, Delhi-110040 through its Managing Director.
….Respondents.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Advocate, for the complainant.
Sh. Arvind Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.
Respondent No.2 exparte.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Ramesh Chand Verma-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant purchased one electric scooty E-Two Wheeler KVR-X (60V) bearing No.870339010 from respondent No.1 on 26.10.2019 for amounting to Rs.47,500/- vide invoice No.5 dt. 26.10.2019. It is the case of complainant that Op No.1 has firstly delivered the possession of scooty on 24.10.2019 with the assurance that the said scooty will ply properly at the speed of 80 Km. per hour against one time charge with electricity and it was also assured that it will ride on the height very smoothly with weight of 150 Kgs. (i.e. two persons) but when complainant used the scooty for his personal work on the same day, complainant found that handle of scooty was not in balance condition and was giving high vibration and it was having manufacturing defects in the scooty. Complainant returned the said scooty to respondent no.1 and respondent No.1 kept the scooty and cancelled the bill of said defective scooty and provided another scooty. The complainant paid additional amount of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent No.1. The said scooty stopped after running/covering 20/25 Kms. Inspite of proper charging complainant could not cover 40 Km. per hour, but the respondent No.1 gave assurance that scooty will cover 80 Km. per hour against one time charge with electricity. Complainant deposited the said defective scooty to respondent No.1 and said defective scooty is in custody of respondent No.1. Complainant requested the respondent No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.47,500/- but respondent No.1 postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the respondent No.1 appeared before this Commission, whereas respondent No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 06.11.2020. Respondent No.1 and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. On merits, it is denied that the complainant has purchased the electric scooty from the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has no concern with the electricity scooty and the respondent No.1 does not sale the above-said scooty to the complainant. The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 & Annexure-R2 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of respondent No.1.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Ld. counsel for complainant argued that the complainant had purchased one electric scooty E-Two Wheeler KVR-X (60V) bearing No.870339010 from respondent No.1 on 26.10.2019 for amounting to Rs.47,500/- vide invoice No.5 dt. 26.10.2019. He has further argued that respondent No.1 has delivered the possession of scooty on 24.10.2019 with the assurance that the said scooty will ply properly at the speed of 80 Km. per hour against one time charge with electricity. He has further argued that the said scooty stopped after running/covering 20/25 Kms. Inspite of proper charging and the complainant could not cover 40 Km. per hour. It was also found that the said scooty was re-painted from one side. He further argued that the respondent No.1 has sold second hand scooty by taking amount of new scooty and also gave false assurance that scooty will not give problems of any kind and said scooty stopped on the height way and on this complainant pull the said scooty on foot despite the complainant is patient of knee. Complainant is having knee problem and is under treatment for that and complainant is old as senior citizen. He further argued that the complainant returned back the defective scooty to respondent No.1 and asked him to refund the amount of Rs.47,500/- but the respondents have been postponing on one pretext or the other. Legal notice was also served upon the respondent No.1. Sh. Som Dutt Sharma, Adv. gave reply of this notice on 20.11.2019 and stated that at the time of delivery, the scooty was in proper condition and was running properly. Lateron some defects might have been occurred for which the respondents are not responsible for any technical defect in the scooty.
Annexure-C1 is the invoice of the scooty vide which Rs.47,500/- have been paid to the respondents.
The respondents have given reply to the notice delivered by Sh. Hem Raj Wadhwa, Adv. appearing on behalf of complainant. In the reply, the respondents have stated that at the time of delivery, scooty was working properly and lateron some mechanical defects have been occurred for which the respondents are not responsible. The respondent No.2 is proceeded against exparte. The respondent No.1 is the seller of scooty. The scooty is still lying with the respondent No.1 and he had assured that the respondent No.1 will deliver the new scooty in lieu of old scooty but neither the amount of Rs.47,500/- has been refunded by the respondent No.1 nor new scooty has been given to the complainant.
7. The respondent No.1 is liable to refund the amount of Rs.47,500/- alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of purchase of scooty till its realization within two months from today. In default, the amount shall carry penal interest @ 9% p.a. Hence, the present complaint is accepted. A copy of said order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:02.02.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
