Order by:

Smt.Priti Malhotra, President

1.       The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 stating that he purchased an electric vehicle bearing registration no.PB29AE2519 for an amount of Rs.74,933.50 from Opposite Party vide retail invoice dated 25.11.2021 and there was a guarantee of 3 years on the said vehicle as well as battery of the vehicle as per Starup Guide issued by Hero Electric. Alleged that in the month of April, 2024, the said vehicle became out of order due to defect in the battery installed in the said vehicle. The complainant visited the office of Opposite Party since April, 2024 and sent mail dated 11.05.2024 to the Opposite Party, but to no effect. Hence, this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to replace the battery of the vehicle in question bearing registration no.PB-29AE-2519.

b)      To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as cost of complaint.

d)      And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite Party appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form. The complainant has wrongly impleaded the Opposite Party whereas the Opposite Party is a unit of Zamindara Farm Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and the complainant has not impleaded the said Company as a party. This fact is duly mentioned in the bill produced by the complainant himself; the Zamindara Farm Solutions Pvt. Ltd. is the distributer of Hero Electric Vehicle Pvt. Ltd and is simply a dealer for sale of electric vehicle on behalf of the company; the complicated questions of law are involved in the present case, which cannot be decided in a summary manner; this Commission has got no jurisdiction to hear and try the present complaint. On merits, it is denied that vehicle and battery is guaranteed for 3 years, rather there was a warranty of the battery for 3 years and not a guarantee. Averred that as per the fact admitted by the complainant before the employees of the Opposite Party that the vehicle in dispute is being used for commercial purposes and in overload conditions so the complainant is not entitled to any relief, as the warranty of the battery had already expired, as the complainant has used the vehicle by violating the guidelines issued by the company. This fact has been duly mentioned in the startup guide produced by the complainant. All other allegations made in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       Complainant has also filed the replication to the written reply of Opposite Party denying the objections raised by Opposite Party in their written reply.

4.       In order to prove the case, the complainant has placed on record his affidavit as Ex.C3 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1, Ex.C2, Ex.C4 to Ex.C7.

5.       On the other hand, Opposite Party has placed on record affidavit of Sh.Jajpreet Singh s/o Manjit Singh as Ex.OP1.

6.         We have heard the ld. counsel for both the parties and also gone through the record.

7.       It is admitted and proved on record that the complainant purchased an electric vehicle bearing registration no.PB-29AE-2519 vide retail invoice date 25.11.2021 (Ex.C2) and there was a guarantee of 3 years on the battery of the vehicle in question as per Ex.C4. It is further proved on record that during the warranty period, the battery of the vehicle in question got defective and the complainant approached the Opposite Party for the repair of the same, vide Ex.C5, but the Opposite Party failed either to repair or replace the same.

8.       On this, only plea taken by the Opposite Party is that there was a warranty of the battery for 3 years and not a guarantee as alleged by the complainant and further the vehicle in dispute is being used for commercial purposes so the complainant is not entitled to any relief, as the complainant has used the vehicle by violating the guidelines issued by the company.

9.       However, the plea taken by the Opposite Party is not genuine, as it has not placed on record any document showing that vehicle in question is being used for commercial purposes. Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence, the plea taken by the Opposite Party cannot be considered. However, it is admitted on record and not denied that there was warranty of 3 years on the battery of the vehicle in question and during the warranty period battery of the vehicle got defective and the Opposite Party is liable to repair or replace the same during the warranty period, but they failed to do so and indulged the complainant in this avoidable litigation, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.

10.     In view of the discussion above, the instant complaint is allowed in part and the Opposite Party is directed to replace the battery of the vehicle in question with new one free of costs and make the vehicle functional. Further the Opposite Party is directed to pay compository cost of Rs.3500/-(Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred only) to be paid to the complainant on account of compensation and litigation expenses. The pending application(s), if any also stands disposed of. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, Opposite Party is further burdened with additional cost of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) to be paid to the complainant for non compliance of the order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced on Open Commission