Orissa

Kendujhar

CC/5/2016

Sunanda Kumar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Satyam Battery House - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Rasmi Ranjan Rout & B.K. Lenka

27 Jan 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR

CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 05 OF 2016

         

                 Sunanda Kumar Sahoo,

                 At- Sarabali, Ghasipura,

                 P.S- Ghasipura,

                 Dist- Keonjhar………………………………………………………….Complainant

                                  Vrs.

             1. Satyam Battery House,

                 In front of Samrat Cinema Hall,

                 Madhupatna, City/ Dist- Cuttack

            2. General Manager,

                 Su-Kam Batteries Ltd.

                 Plot No.54, Udyog Vihar,

                 Phase-VI, Sector-37, Gurgaon,

                 Haryana, Pin- 122001 ………………………………………………Op. Parties

 

PRESENT: SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

                  SMT. B. GIRI, MEMBER (W)

                 Advocate for the Complainant: Sri Rasmi Ranjan Rout & B.K. Lenka

                 Advocate for OP1: Himansu Sekhar Mohanty & G.N. Jena

                 Advocate for OP2: set-exparte

________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Date of Filing: 28.1.2016                                                                                            Date of Order: 27.1.2017

SHRI PURUSHOTTAM SAMANTARA, PRESIDENT

1. Succinctly put, the complainant purchased one Su-Kam brand Automotive Battery, Model No.ATR100E41L on dt.11.2.2014 against consideration of Rs.6500/- from SATYAM BATTERY HOUSE, vide bill No.307, in averment that the battery vendor deals in all types of batteries.

2. The complainant also averred, the battery functioned nearly seven months from purchase and the defects surfaced in multi-faceted manner. As the battery runs a warranty of one year so the complaint lodged on toll free No. and the complaint No.150 829 6095, on dt.29.8.2014.

3. Further added in response, the junior service engineer inspected the product at Anandapur and subsequent at Kendujhar in advising to place the battery of the dealer with respective document. The battery was deposited along with the document but the company and the authorized dealer failed in rectification, replacement so also refund in callous manner.   

4. It is also submitted, due to protracted delay in attending the defect one pleader notice was sent on dt.30.10.2014. Hence the case, Relied on retail Invoice photocopy, warranty card and affidavit.

  Praying for replacement or refund as deemed fit under the provision of law.

5. In pursuance notice, the OP1 appeared and filed the version in admission, the battery in question has been purchased on the date and vendor against the consideration but contended nothing has communicated to the OP and the defects raised on the battery is due to faulty electrical system and improper handling of same. The warranty as argued is to be honoured by the manufacturing company nothing rests with this OP to cater or vendor any service.

6. Further submitted, the case suffers maintainability, as there is no cause of action to ensue. The case also fails due to non-joinder of party above all the OP is not residing within the jurisdiction, on that score the maintainability is at stake.

7. The OP2 remain non-appeared and absent, having giving with sufficient opportunities to make his defence.   

8. Heard the learned counsels of the complainant and extensive submissions of the counsel of OP. Perused the materials on record and the proceeds.

9.  On the outset, the record reveals the product of Su-Kam brand battery has been transacted, same is admitted by the OP. The respective photocopies furnished well advances that the corroboration as made by the complainant is believable, trustworthy and admissible material in evidence.

10. The contention on the issue of maintainability as urged is worth of explanation. The Su-Kam battery purchased on dt.11.2.2014 that bears a model No.ATR100E41L and product code FDDBATATAUTO-12240010001 against the consideration is no more disputed one.

11. On the contrary, it is a fact, Su-Kam battery has enough retail outlet at Kendujhar, so quiet evidential, it carries on business, personally works for gain within the provision of section-11 and the defects that surfaced verified by the service engineer, not removed, thereby the cause of action arises either in whole or part at Kendujhar in admission of jurisdiction. No barred of limitation suffers to dispute. So the question of maintainability is baseless and preposterously raised has no leg to stand.

12. Further to say, the OP1 has not demonstrated any supportative document and report in admission that the defect in the battery has been erupted due to faulty electrical equipment or system so also for improper handling, the objection is evasive and ill-willed one rather, it is advanced to resile from the statutory responsibility in rendering service within the warranty tenure or span. It is also found no step has been mooted by the OP in rectification or replacement or refund in post institution of the case.

13. In further proceed, the authorized dealer although deputed the service engineer, has not admitted the same and same denouncement has not plead with supportative document. No record has been produced on the toll free accepted complaint No. and visiting and inspection of the product by production of tour register.

14. We can say, the case is a vivid consumer dispute. The defect and deficiency raised is within the definition of Section-2(f) & (g) of the C.P. Act 1986.

15. No service rendered in rectification of the defect in warranty is a breach of promise which is in expressed term. Non-response, vitiated the contract which is also an unfair trade practice under Section-2 (r), Sub-section (i) (vii) & (viii) of the C.P. Act1986.

16. Our same view is fortified with the decision that we bent to rely-“It is duty of manufacturer/dealer to repair defects in a product during warranty period within a reasonable time.”- Krishna Kumar Sahu Vs. Manager, Jai Shri Electronics & Ors. -2010(1) CPR 149.

(ii) “Dealer is bound to repair vehicle during period of warranty”- Saroja Automobiles Ltd. Vs. Shri Bhawarlal -2013(3) CPR 12 ((NC).

  In view of the above noted discussion, we come to conclusion, toll free No. communication rest with the manufacturer which is either way not controverted by any document evidence, so the OP2 not acted willfully, the silence of non-representation is collusive in nature. Hence we hold the OPs are deficient in non-rendering any service against a bonafide claim. Thus liable to pay in jointly and severally.          

O R D E R

    The OPs are directed to replace the defective product with a new one of same model, brands & specification and also of consideration within 4 weeks of this order in alternate, be pay the complainant a sum of Rs.6500/-(Six thousand five hundred rupees) the transacted amount along with Rs.500/- (Five hundred) towards compensation inclusive of cost within above said time frame, failure in the above term and period will attract @ Rs.5/- per day penalty till realization.

                Copy of the Order be made available to the parties as per rule.

                File be consigned to record room.

                Pronounced, 27^th January 2017.

   

                                                                                                                                             

            I agree                                                                                     

       (Smt. B. Giri)                                                                                             (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

       Member (W)                                                                                                              President                                                                                                                                      

    DCDRF, Keonjhar                                                                                                 DCDRF, Keonjhar

                                                            

                                                                                        Dictated & Corrected by me

                                                                                     (Shri Purushottam Samantara)

                                                                                                   (President)       

                                                                                           DCDRF, Keonjhar