Date of filing:- 17/10/2016.
Date of Order:- 26/07/2017.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 41 of 2016.
Ramakanta Maharana, S/o Hari Maharana, aged about 33(thirty three) years, R/o/ Po/Ps. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh (Odisha) Pin-768027.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
Managing Director, Digipower, D-7 Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041.
The Proprietor, D.S. Iron Store, At/Po/Ps. Main Road, Attabira, Dist. Bargarh, Pin-768027(Odihsa). ..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties.
For the Complainant:- Sri P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Parties:- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r(w).
Dt.26/07/2017 -: J U D G E M E N T :-
Presented by Ajanta Subhadarsinee, Member(w):-
The Complainant has filed this case Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986, against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice.
The brief fact of the case is that, the Opposite Parties are respectively the manufacturer and seller of Digipower batteries. On Dt.14/06/2013, the Complainant had purchased one Digipower Battery bearing model No.48MDT948, SL No. BROCO28601207144 for Rs.14,000/-(Rupees fourteen thousand)only with an inverter for Rs.5,500/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred)only from the Opposite Party No.2(two) i.e. the Proprietor, D.S.Iron Store, Main Road, Attabira, Dist. Bargarh with due receipt along with a warranty card for his domestic use. According to the Complainant after one year of purchase defect occurred in the said battery, within the warranty period of free replacement i.e. 36(thirty six) months from its date of purchase. Then the Complainant lodged due complaint with Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties in turn took the same and provided an another battery bearing the same model having SL. No. FQRS058501719880 reflecting the same in the warranty card of the previous battery. This battery also cause the same problem again and again. The Complainant informed to the Opposite Parties about these facts when the battery become totally defunct on Dt.04/06/2016, which is within the replacement warranty period of 36(thirty six) months. Then the Complainant lodged a complaint and submitted the battery to Opposite Party No.2(two). The Opposite Party received the same on Dt.11/06/2016. In turn the Opposite Party No.2(two) after keeping the battery for some days with him provided “Battery test report” to the Complainant and informed that the warranty is not accepted by the company, because it is out of warranty period, even though defect of the battery was occurred, reported and submitted by the Complainant within the warranty period of thirty six months. Then the Complainant served Advocate notice on Dt.18/08/2016 by registered post with A.D. on the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties inspite of receiving the notice did not response, hence the case has been filed by the Complainant.
This act of the Opposite Parties amount to deficiency in service. The Opposite parties are also violating the terms and conditions of the warranty, issued by the company. On the other hand, the Complainant suffered a loss, mental agony and physical harassment without getting any benefit or utility by the illegal act of the Opposite Parties. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties the Complainant prayed for Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only towards financial loss, mental agony and physical strain and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards litigation expenses along with interest which the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay to him besides replacement of the battery or its value i.e. Rs.14,000/-(Rupees fourteen thousand)only.
The Complainant has relied upon the following documents to establish his case.
Xerox copy of money receipt vide No.937 Dt.14/06/2013 issued in favour of the Complainant.
Xerox copy of Battery test report issued by the Opposite Parties.
Xerox copy of warranty card given by the Opposite Parties.
Xerox copy of advocate notice Dt.16/08/2016 with postal receipt Dt.18/08/2016.
Xerox copy of delivery report of the notice to the Opposite Parties downloaded from the Internet.
The above xerox copies were verified with the original ones.
The Forum admitted the complaint petition by perusing the petition and documents in its support and hearing the argument of the advocate for the Complainant, and sent notices to the Opposite Parties for their appearance and version. SR back after duly served. The Opposite Party No.1(one)authorized one of their official staff namely Mr. Sunil Kumar Satpathy, to appear in this case on behalf of Digi Power (A Division of Okaya Power Pvt. Ltd) to represent the company, but neither he appeared nor he filed his version before the Forum till Dt.04/07/2017. Where Opposite Party No.2(two) did not turn up personally or appear through any legal representatives. Therefore both the Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) are set ex-parte on Dt.04/07/2017.
Heard the Complainant and posted the case for ex-parte order.
The Forum perused the documents and evidences available on record, hearing the advocate for the Complainant on admission of complaint, admitted the complaint to be genuine one. Issued notices to the Opposite Parties but they did not appeare before the Forum. Hence passed the order in ex-parte. After careful scrutiny of the same it is found that the Complainant has purchased one Digi Power Battery with an inverter from Opposite Party No.2(two). The Opposite Party No.2(two) has issued the money receipt in that regard vide SL. No. 937 Dt.14/06/2013. The Complainant in his complaint petition alleged that during the warranty period of thirty six months the Battery purchased by him shows defect and approached the Opposite Parties to replace the battery. The Opposite Party No.2(two) provided another battery of the same model to the Complainant reflecting the same in the warranty card of the previous battery. The said second battery also caused the same problem again which was informed to Opposite Party No.2(two) by the Complainant on Dt.04/06/2016 i.e. within the replacement warranty period of above mentioned 36(thirty six) months. But the Opposite Parties by receiving the same on Dt.11/06/2016 did not provide necessary service to the Complainant. The warranty card issued by Opposite Party No.2(two) shows that the defect occurred within the warranty period. The Opposite Parties to counter the complaint case neither appeared in this case nor submit any documentary evidence to disprove the case of the Complainant.
Hence it can be concluded that the Complainant is a genuine consumer of the Opposite Parties Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. And by not providing proper service to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in providing consumer service to the Complainant for which both are jointly and severally liable hereunder.
In the result the Forum allowed the case of the Complainant and order follows:-
-: O R D E R :-
The Forum hereby direct the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally to replace the old battery with a new Digi Power battery of the same make and model to the Complainant or refund the cost of the Battery i.e. Rs.14,000/-(Rupees fourteen thousand)only along with Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand)only towards compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses to the Complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which total awarded amount shall carry @10%(ten percent) interest per annum till the actual date of realization of amount.
The Complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee )
M e m b e r(w).
I agree, I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Das) (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
M e m b e r(m). P r e s i d e n t.
