DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SUBARNAPUR
C.D. Case No. 1 of 2015
Sri Jagannath M.P.C.S., Binka, through its Secretary, Saroj Kumar Mishra, aged about 43 years, S/o. Biseswar Mishra, Occupation – Business, R/o. village/P.O./P.S. Binka, District – Subarnapur.
………… Complainant
Vrs.
1. Meher Sales, Binka through its Proprietor Suru Meher, R/o. village/P.O./P.S. Binka, District – Subarnapur.
2. Balaji Batteries, Gosala Road Bargarh.
…… Opp. Parties
Advocate for the Complainant …………. Sri S.N.Sahu
Advocate for the O.Ps. …………. None
Present
1. Sri S.C.Nayak, President
2. Smt. S.Mishra Lady Member
Date of Judgment Dt.10.02.2016
J U D G M E N T
By Smt. S.Mishra, Lady Member.
The complainant has instituted the complaint against the O.Ps. seeking relief. Firstly to provide him a new battery or in alternative the present market value of battery and secondly a sum of Rs.10,000/- be awarded against the O.Ps. for neglecting the complainant and harassment.
The substance of the complainant’s case is that he has purchased an Exide MEDA 1500 battery from Meher sales O.P. No.1 vide Bill No.105, on dt.15.2.2013 by paying total consideration of Rs.13,750/-. Further it is averred that within warranty period it was found defective and not functioning. For this the complainant approached to O.P. No.1 to solve the defects but he did not response. It is also pleaded that the O.P. No.2 has committed negligence and deficiency in providing proper services to the complainant as such O.Ps. are liable jointly and severally as sought for in the complaint.
In this case the complainant himself has filed the complaint and subsequently engaged advocate to conduct this case on his behalf as such the substance of the complaint is to be considered not the form and contents.
The crux of the dispute arose when the O.Ps. denied to accept the warranty claim vide letter dt.22.1.2015 stating therein that, after through examination of the battery in question by their service Engineer, it shows that the battery has failed, due to extraneous reasons and assign the causes of defect. Being aggrieved with such refusal of warranty claim, getting no other way out the complainant has preferred this complaint for redressal. It is also pertinent to note that, despite service of summons the O.Ps. faired to appear before the Forum. Owing to their absence the case is proceeded exparte. The O.Ps., who are service provider have been grossly negligent in conduct of their defence in this case.
-: 2 :-
To substantiate the complaint, the learned advocate S.N.Sahu, submitted that the written allegations of the complainant is supported with affidavit and the complainant is a consumer as he has purchased the Exide battery by paying consideration in full and the O.Ps. are service provider liable for deficiency in providing services and that the letter of refusal given on behalf of O.Ps. on dt.22.1.2015 is not correct and the cause of defects as assigned in it is also false and not acceptable.
After hearing the complainant and on careful scrutiny. It is learnt that, the battery of the complainant is defective and not giving satisfactory performance within the period of warranty. There is no evidence to substantiate that owing to the fault of the complainant it causes defect in it.
On careful scrutiny of letter dt.22.1.2015 given on behalf of the O.Ps., it is observed that, if the battery is defective due to extraneous causes then, why the O.Ps. could not appear in the forum to substantiate their stand. So mere mentioning in the body of the battery is not sufficient, proof of such cause is highly necessary, law is well settled that the burden lies on the service provider to prove that the warranty claim comes within exclusion and they are not liable to repair or replace as the case may be due to vide causes. But in this case sufficient opportunity is given to dispute the warranty claim lodged by the complainant and to discharging the burden of exemption by adducing cogent convincing and impartial evidence. Therefore taking of the facts and circumstances of the complaint, I have no option but to hold that repudiation of warranty claim of the complainant is unjust and is equitable. The O.Ps. being service provider are jointly and severally liable for deficiency in providing service to the complainant.
The O.Ps. are directed to replace the battery by a new one or to pay the sale price of the battery. In either case they are also directed to pay Rs.1500/- towards compensation and cost of litigation to the complainant. All these should be done within one month from the date of order.
Complaint is partly allowed. Send copy of order to the O.Ps.
Dated the 10th day of February 2016
Typed to my dictation
I agree. and corrected by me.
Sri S.C. Nayak Smt. S.Mishra
President Lady Member
Dt.10.02.2016 Dt.10.02.2016
