Ghaziabad: District consumer disputes redressal commission has ordered Loni-based Prabhat Automobiles to replace the battery pack fitted to an electric loader bike within 30 days from Oct 16 at no extra cost and also pay compensation of Rs 10,000 to the owner for refusing to replace it during the warranty period.Commission president Anil Kumar Pundir and members Shailja Sachan and RP Singh, while disposing of the matter ex parte, held that despite a breakdown during the warranty period, the automobile company did not repair the vehicle and demanded Rs 24,500 for battery repairs. “As the opposite party has not appeared before the commission to rebut the plaintiff’s claims on file, so based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff, the commission concludes that the opposite party has committed a deficiency of service by failing to repair the vehicle within the warranty period,” the panel held.An official complaint was filed by Sabir against Prabhat Automobile on Oct 21, 2024, seeking relief for the repair of a new e-bike that he had bought from them. Sabir said that he purchased an ABM Lamba Loader electric bike on July 28, 2023, for Rs 78,000 for his firm SK Enterprises. For this purchase, he obtained a loan. The complainant said Prabhat Automobile gave him a warranty booklet and told him he could avail of the warranty within three years if the battery malfunctioned.The complainant said the bike started malfunctioning within the first six months after he bought it. He said he went to the dealer and complained about the bike’s poor performance but they took no steps to repair the issue. Subsequently, an argument ensued between the two parties, and the defendant promised to repair the bike and the plaintiff returned it to the dealer on Feb 28, 2024. When the defendant did not return the bike after several visits, the plaintiff filed an email complaint with the company on March 30, 2024, responding to which the defendant demanded Rs 24,500 from Sabir to repair the bike. He then filed a complaint with the district consumer panel, alleging the dealer was violating the warranty norms and the incident qualified as an unfair trade practice.“Based on the evidence presented, the opposite party has committed a breach of service. Accordingly, the issue for consideration is decided,” the commission ruled.
