CHARANJIT SINGH Vs. ELECTROTHERM INDIA LTD & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 13.5.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased one "Yo Electron Bike" on 30.3.2009, from Opposite Party No. 2, and a Certificate with identification No. 000218 (Annexure C -2), was issued by Opposite Party No. 1. As per the Brochure (Annexure C -1), it was claimed that the said vehicle, would give mileage of 70 -75 kms. per charging. As against it, when it gave an average of only 40 -45 kms, per charging, the complainant approached Opposite Party No. 2, which told that the average would improve after first service, which was done on 29.4.2009. It was stated that the problem of low average continued, due to which, the complainant, being an old man of 65 years, had to face difficulties. It was further stated that, despite carrying out necessary repairs/services on time, the vehicle, failed to give the claimed average and was only giving average of 30 -40 kms on full charging of batteries. He, thus, approached Opposite Party No. 2, on 17.11.2009, which told that the batteries were to be replaced and since warranty period of six months had lapsed, he had to pay Rs. 6,000, towards the cost of the batteries. It was further stated that the vehicle, ran less than 1500 kms, in 09 months, and every month, the same had to be taken to the workshop, for the low average problem. It was further stated that the complainant requested Opposite Party No. 2, to take back the vehicle, and refund Rs. 28,000, being the cost price of the same, but it flatly refused. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, and indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

(3.) OPPOSITE Party No. 1, in its written reply, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, regarding purchase of the vehicle, and issuance of Certificate with identification No. 000218 (Annexure C -2), stated that the complainant was very irregular, in availing services, provided in the owner's manual. It was further stated that, therefore, on account of irregular services, he was complaining of low mileage. It was further stated that the good performance of the battery operated vehicles, would depend upon so many parameters like driving habits and road conditions, acceleration and braking, free movement of the vehicle, sudden acceleration and sudden braking, maintenance of correct air pressure, in the tyres, putting the extra load, on the vehicle, charger of the battery, etc. etc. It was further stated that, had the batteries been defective, as alleged, the complainant would not have been able to run the vehicle, for all this period. It was further stated that, on receipt of complaint, from the complainant, the battery was checked and it was found perfect and in O.K. condition. It was further stated that, since the warranty terms and conditions, were not adhered to by the complainant, he himself, was responsible and the answering Opposite Party, could not be blamed for that, and, as such, he was not entitled to free replacement of the battery. It was further stated, that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Party, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining allegations, were denied, being wrong.