State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sheela Rani vs Rohit Automobiles on 27 March, 2014
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision : 27.03.2014 First Appeal No.695/2011 (Arising out of the order dated 08.11.2011 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (North-East), Bunkar Vihar Complex, Nand Nagari, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.175/2011) Smt. Sheela Rani W/o Sh. Kamal Nayan H.N.-72, Street-2, Block-A. Pocket-5, Near CRPF Camp Sonia Vihar, Delhi-110094 Appellant VERSUS 1. Manager Rohit Automobiles B-40, Main Wazirabad Road, Bhajanpura Delhi-110053 2. Manager Mark Batteries Pvt. Ltd. Plot No. 1619 Behind Essar Petrol Pump & Panchvati Hotel NH 8-A, Bavla, Dist-Ahmedabad, Gujrat-382220 ...Respondents CORAM S.A.Siddiqui, Member (Judicial) S.C.Jain, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
S.C.Jain , Member Judgment
1) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dt.
08.11.2011 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North-East), Bunkar Vihar, Nand Nagri, Delhi in Complaint Case No.175/2011.
2) The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant purchased from respondent-1/OP-1 on 28.11.2010 a battery operated e-bike and paid a total amount of Rs. 25,850/- which included insurance premium amount of Rs. 650/-. The e-bike was manufactured by respondent-2/OP-2 i.e. M/s Mark Batteries Pvt. Ltd. The respondent-1/OP-1 is authorised dealer of the M/s Mark Batteries Pvt. Ltd. i.e. respondent-2/OP-2. The appellant/complainant submitted in its complaint before the District Forum that from the day one of its purchase, the e-bike was suffering from various defects and was sent to the workshop of the dealer for repairs 17 times, but its faults were not removed. The bike was having defects in control circuit, break plates, switch head light holder, tekometer, left side indicator switch, and was giving starting problem also there was defect in the lock as well as starting switch besides defect in the battery. Due to numerous and repeated defects in the e-bike and due to non-rectification of the defects, the respondent-1/OP-1 asked the appellant/complainant to leave the bike with them for repair to make the same completely defect free. But inspite of repeated reminders through e-mails to the dealer as well as to the manufacturer, the bike was never made roadworthy and inspite of her repeated visits to the workshop, she was never handed over the bike by the dealer.
3) Aggrieved by the attitude of the dealer and the manufacturer, who never attended to her e-mails and when the bike was not handed over to her after rectification of the defects, the appellant/complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum praying therein to direct the respondents/OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 25,200/- i.e. the cost of the bike alongwith cost and compensation.
4) The District Forum issued notices to the respondents/OPs, but inspite of service of the notices none appeared on behalf of the respondents/OPs before the District Forum and accordingly respondents/OPs were proceeded with ex-parte.
5) The appellant/complainant filed its ex-parte evidence which remained un-rebutted. The complainant/appellant in its affidavit filed before the District Forum had clearly stated that the bike was defective from the very beginning and she visited the workshop of the respondent-1/OP-1 seventeen times, but she was never provided the job cards because the job cards were always kept by the OP-1/respondent-1 with them and inspite of asking for their copies she was never provided the copies of the job cards, but the District Forum considering the un-rebutted version of the complainant as true which was supported by an affidavit observed that there is not a single document to show that the e-bike was ever submitted in the workshop for rectification of the defects that are alleged by the complainant and merely placing on record, the e-mail sent to the respondents does not suffice for proving their case and simply ordered that, since the e-bike is still under warranty the respondents shall repair it and renderer it roadworthy.
6) That is what brought the appellant before this Commission in appeal.
7) Registered notice under AD cover was sent to the respondents who never appeared inspite of sufficient service and were proceeded with ex-parte. Ex-parte arguments of the appellant heard. File perused.
8) The appellant in its appeal assailed the order of the District Forum on the ground that, the District Forum had not appreciated her version which was supported by an affidavit and the same remained un-rebutted and further stated that inspite of her submissions in the complaint that, the e-bike was taken to the workshop of respondent-1 seventeen times and ultimately that was left with the OP-1/respondent-1 on 23.04.2011 and since then the bike is with the dealer who had not handed over the same after rectification of the defects to her itself shows that the e-bike is defectively designed/manufactured product and had been launched in the market without testing the same vigorously for its roadworthiness before launching the same in the market, which amounts to unfair trade practice and not repairing the bike inspite of many visits even during the warranty period, constitute the deficiency in providing service on the part of the respondents/OPs.
9) The appellant/complainant further stated that the District Forum had erred in holding that as there is no manufacturing defect proved by the complainant/appellant and ordering only for its repair and rendering the same roadworthy is unjustified and the District Forum should have ordered for the refund of the amount.
10) It is clear from the un-rebutted submissions made by the complainant/appellant that the e-bike was taken to the workshop seventeen times and the e-bike was giving trouble since the date of purchase, and the complainant/appellant could not enjoy for which the bike was purchased and rather she was subjected to harassment and mental agony by going to the workshop again and again and if the bike have been sent to the workshop for seventeen times then there is nothing left to be proved for its defective manufacturing. The facts that the dealer and the manufacturer of the bike could not rectified the defects even up to today and bike is still with the dealer, shows that the same is a defective piece and ordering its repair and make the same roadworthy shall never satisfy the appellant/complainant and the best way in such type of cases is to order of the refund of the amount, because if the bike is repaired or replaced the complainant can never have faith in the company and again and again he will be put to harassment and mental agony and will be forced to enter into another bont of litigation, in such circumstances the best course is to order for the refund of the amount. The submissions made by the appellant are sustainable and we are of the opinion that the e-bike sold to the appellant was a defective one and the appellant deserves for the refund of its amount.
We accordingly allow the appeal and modify the order of the District Forum as follows:-
The respondents/OPs shall refund the amount of the e-bike amounting to Rs. 25,200/- to the appellant/complainant as the e-bike is already with respondent. No order as to cost and compensation.
11) The above orders are joint as well as several against both the respondents/OPs.
12) The above orders be complied with by the respondents/OPs within 30 days from the receipt of these orders and if respondents/OPs fails to comply the above orders, the appellant/complainant shall be at liberty to approach District Forum concerned under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
13) Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law and one copy be sent to District Forum (North-East), Bunkar Vihar Complex, Nand Nagri, New Delhi and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
14) FDR if any deposited by the appellant be released as per rule.
(S.A.Siddiqui) Member (Judicial) (S.C.Jain) Member Fatima 27.03.2014 FA-695/11 Sheela Rani Vs M/s Rohit Automobiles Ltd. & Anr.
Order announced separately. Appeal allowed. Order modified.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law and case file be consigned to record room.
(S.A.Siddiqui) Member (Judicial) (S.C.Jain) Member Fatima