Date of filing:-04/03/2017.
Date of Order:-06/09/2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 10 of 2017.
Himansu Kumar Panda S/o Saroj Kumar Panda, aged about 34(thirty four) years, Occupation- Cultivation, R/o. And P.o. Bannar, Ps/Tahasil. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh.
.... ..... .... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
Managing Director, Arise India Limited, B-38, Jain Chowk, Mangalpuri Palam, New Delhi-110045.
The Care Manager, Arise India Ltd., Main Road RZ ½, Jain Chowk, Palam Colony, New Delhi-110045.
The Proprietor, M/s Sri Laxmi Store, Turum Road, Godbhaga, P.o. Godbhaga, Ps/Tahasil. Attabira, Dist. Bargarh-768028.
..... ..... ..... ...... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.K.Satpathy, 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.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.06/09/2019. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Ajanta Subhadarsinee, Member (w):-
The Complainant has filed this case U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986 alleging deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties.
The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant has purchased one “ARISE” Brand 150 Ah Tubular Battery of model Dynasty 1650/36 being serial No. AKFO 141106340 on Dt.28/08/2015 from Opposite Party No.3(three) who is the local seller of Arise Brand product, on payment of Rs.12,485/-(Rupees twelve thousand four hundred eighty five)only for his personal use with the money receipt/bill and warranty card there of whereas the Opposite Party No.1(one) is the Managing Director, Arise India Limited, New Delhi and Opposite Party No.2(two) is the Care Manager, Arise India Ltd., New Delhi.
The complaint contends that after using of two to three months, the Battery did not provide proper back up and the problem arose frequently, for which the Complainant has reported the Opposite Party No.3(three) for several times and put forth his grievance for the same before him. But the Opposite Party No.3(three) deffered the matter without solving the problem on the Battery. Again the Complainant has placed his grievance before the customer care of the company for the defective Battery over the telephone, which was within the warranty period, but they did not listen to the Complainant till filing of this case.
Further the complaint contends that, finding no way out the Complainant has served pleaders notice Dt.09/08/2016 which were posted on Dt.10/08/2016 to the Opposite Parties to compensate the Complainant for his suffering due to their negligence and to refund the money value of the Battery with interest. In spite of receiving the pleader notice form the Complainant the Opposite Parties remain silent without taking any action therein. Lastly, the Complainant has filed this case before the Hon'ble Forum for the redressal and prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only as compensation for the negligence and deficiency of service and to refund money value of the Battery with the interest.
Such act and conduct towards the Complainant by the Opposite Parties are amounting to negligence and deficiency in rendering consumer service towards their consumer/customer. And due to defectiveness of the product, it was not used by the Complainant for the purpose, it was purchased and for which the Complainant has paid for. Due to the above reason the Complainant has suffered physically, mentally and monetarily and the purchase of the Battery become worthless. Thus the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Complainant for deficiency in rendering service towards him. So the Complainant has assessed the compensation for his suffering to a tune of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only on all counts besides the Opposite Parties are also liable to refund the money value of the battery with interest.
The Complainant in support of his contention relies upon the following documents:-
Xerox copy of retail invoice Dt.28/08/2015 (verified with the original one)
Xerox copy of warranty card Dt.28/08/2015.
Xerox copy of pleader notice Dt.9/10.08.2016.
Two numbers of original postal receipts Dt.10/08/2016.
Having gone through the complaint petition and the documents and hearing from the advocate for the Complainant, the Forum admitted the case and served notices on the Opposite Parties for their appearance and version. SR back from Opposite Party No.3(three) but unserved notice has returned from Opposite Party No.1(one) being postal endorsement “Last Return to sender” and SR not back from Opposite Party No.2(two). Being noticed the Opposite Parties neither appeared nor filed their version till Dt.22/07/2019, consequent whereupon, the Forum was pleased to set them as Ex-parte and the date fixed for Ex-parte hearing. Heard the matter from the advocate for the Complainant and posted for Ex-parte Order.
After a careful scrutiny of the case record and the documents filed by the Complainant and hearing the advocate for the Complainant it is found that the Complainant has purchased a “ARISE” Brand, 150 Ah Tubular Battery of Model Dynasty 1650/36, bearing SL No. AKF 0141106340 from the Opposite Party No.3(three) on Dt.28/08/2015 on payment of Rs.12,485/-(Rupees twelve thousand four hundred eighty five)only for his domestic use, being supplied with a money receipt bearing Bill No.180 and the warranty card there of. So the Complainant become the consumer of the Opposite Parties the original warranty card and the said Battery have been submitted by him before the Opposite Party No.3(three), as per his instruction for replacement of the same and the said Battery became defective within the warranty period so it is the prime duty of the Opposite Parties to solve the problem of their products within the warranty period supplied by them. So in order to provide justice to the consumer, the manufacturer, the care manager and the dealer should either replace the Battery or refund the cost of the product to the Complainant. In fact, in this circumstances the Opposite Parties failed to remove the defect in the said Battery, in spite of keeping the same with them.
The Opposite Parties were also neither contested in this case to counter the allegations imposed by the Complainant nor have taken any steps to eradicate the problems occurred in the said Battery. The Opposite Parties have not filed their written version and also failed to adduce any evidence before the Forum that there prevailed no defect in the said battery. The xerox copy of warranty card has been filed by the Complainant bearing Model DYNASTY 1650/36 and serial No. AKF 0141106340 with dealer's stamp and signature there of Dt.28/08/2015, issued by the Opposite Party No.3(three) in the name of the Complainant which shows the term and condition prevailed upon the product of the company i.e. Arise India Ltd. As per the terms and condition of the warranty on the product, “ if there prevail any defect in the product, within the warranty period, free repair on replacement will be made, subject to conditions mentioned in the warranty card.” In order to provide justice to the consumer, the manufacturer and the dealer should either replace the battery or refund the cost of the product to the Complainant or provide the Battery in absolute “defect-free” condition to the Complainant, duly certified by an appropriate technical authority. In fact, it is the duty of the dealer and the customer care to pay pro-achive role and remove the defects in the Battery, leaving no element of ambiguity about its fitness from technical point of view, where as they have failed to do so.
From the above facts it reveals that although defect occurred within the warranty period, neither it replaced nor rectified by the Opposite Parties in due course of time, amounts to deficiency in rendering service and adopting unfair trade practice, on the part of the Opposite Parties to their customer/consumer. Even notices were duly received by them, but their non-appearance in the Forum clearly implies that they are will fully disobeying the orders of the Hon'ble Forum and they have nothing to say about the dispute matter. Due to these act and attitude of the Opposite Parties the Complainant has got mentally harassment and financial loss and the purpose of purchasing the Battery has also been frustrated. Hence, gross negligence and deficiency in service lies with the Opposite Parties for which they are jointly and severally liable for, to compensate the Complainant.
Hence, it can be concluded by us that the Complainant is a genuine consumer of the Opposite Parties U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and by not providing any consumer service towards the Complainant the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in service and have adopted unfair trade practice and are jointly and severally liable for compensation, raised by the Complainant.
Hence, the order follows as here under:-
-: O R D E R :-
The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to refund the cost of the Battery Rs.12,485/-(Rupees twelve thousand four hundred eighty five)only with interest @ 6%(six percent) per annum from the date of filing of this case till the date of Order and further directed to pay the Complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only as compensation in lieu of his mental any physical harassment and litigation expenses within one month of receipt of this Order in default of which an interest would accrue on the total award amount Rs.17,485/-(Rupees seventeen thousand four hundred eighty five)only @12%(twelve percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case till the actual realization of the total amount.
Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum to-day on Dt.06/09/2019 and the case is allowed against the Opposite Parties and is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r.
I agree,
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
Uploaded by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan
Office Assistant, Bargarh.
