Delhi

East Delhi

CC/833/2015

HARKESH SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.K ELECTRONIC - Opp.Party(s)

21 Mar 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.  833/15

 

1. Shri Harkesh Singh

S/o Shri Pratap Singh

R/o 35/223, Trilok Puri

Delhi – 110 091                                                           ….Complainant

Vs.

1. M/s. A.K. Electronics & Anr.

Through its Owner

Shop No. 7, DDA Market

Near Gurudwara, Himmat Puri

Mayur Vihar-I, Delhi -110 091

 

2. Su Kam Power Systems Limited

Through its Director/MD/AR

196-C (basement), Udyog Vihar

Phase-VI, Sector-37

Gurgaon – 122 001                                                        …Opponents

 

 

Date of Institution: 28.10.2015

Judgement Reserved on : 21.03.2018

Judgement Passed on: 22.03.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

            This complaint has been filed by Shri Harkesh Singh against         M/s A.K. Electronics (OP-1) and M/s. Su Kam Power Systems Limited  (OP-2) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of deficiency in service.    

2.         The facts in brief are that the complainant Harkesh Singh purchased a battery from M/s. A.K. Electronics (OP-1) for a sum of Rs. 6,666.66/-, manufactured by M/s. Su Kam Power Systems Ltd. (OP-2) for his inverter on 08.06.2015 against invoice no. 450, book no. 09 with two years warranty.  After two months of its purchase, there were problems in the battery for which the complainant made a telephonic complaint and engineer of OP-2 came to his house who told the complainant that the battery was not working properly and it has to be changed.  He provided delivery challan no. 026623 dated 12.09.2015. 

            After one week, engineer of OP-2 visited the house of complainant and took his battery for change.  The battery was returned stating that some oil was found in the battery which was the fault on the part of the complainant.  Thus, it has been stated that there was deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for replacement of battery or refund of Rs. 6,666.66/- and Rs. 50,000/- compensation on account of mental trauma, pain and agony.   

3.         In the reply filed on behalf of M/s. A.K. Electronics (OP-1), they have stated that they were under no obligation to replace or repair the battery and the warranty, if any, was issued by Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd.      (OP-2).  They were just the trader of OP-2.  They have denied other facts also.

            In the reply filed on behalf of M/s. Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd.    (OP-2), they have taken the plea that the complainant tampered the battery which was against the terms and conditions of warranty.  Thus, it has been stated that there was no deficiency on their part.  Other facts have also been denied.    

4.         Rejoinder to the WS of OP-2 was filed by the complainant where the contents of the WS have been denied and has reaffirmed the averments of his complaint.

5.         In support of its complaint, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the contents of the complaint.  He has also got exhibited documents such as copy of bill of the battery (Ex.CW-1/A), copy of field service report dated 20.09.2015  (Ex.CW-1/B), copy of delivery challan dated 12.09.2015 (Ex.CW-1/C), copy  of battery card dated 08.06.2014 (Ex.CW-1/D) and copy of driving license  (Ex.CW-1/E).   

            Notice of the complaint was given to OP.  They appeared, but stopped appearing during the course of proceedings.  Hence, they have been proceeded ex-parte.  No evidence has been filed by OP-2

6.         We have heard the complainant in person and have perused the material placed on record.  None has appeared on behalf of OP-2.  Though, OP-2 have taken the stand that the complainant have tampered with the battery as per the report of the service engineer, but no such report has been filed on record.  Though, they have taken this stand in the written statement, but they have not filed their evidence to substantiate this fact.  In the absence of any evident on record to show that the complainant have tamped with the battery, the plea taken by OP-2 cannot be accepted.  Thus, the testimony of complainant have to be accepted.

            Therefore, from the testimony of the complainant, it comes out that the battery which was supplied by OP-2 was defective one and that being so, there was deficiency on the part of OP-2.  When there was deficiency on the part of OP_2, certainly, the complainant have suffered mental pain and suffering for which he has to be compensated.

            In view of the above, we order that M/s. Su-Kam Power Systems Limited (OP-2) shall replace the battery with 6 months warranty from the date of its return to the complainant.  If the battery is not returned, the complainant should be refunded an amount of Rs. 6,666.66/-, the cost of the battery.  Complainant is also entitled for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental pain and suffering.  This amount also includes the cost of litigation.  The same has to be paid by M/s. Su-Kam Power Systems Limited (OP-2).

            The order be complied within a period of 45 days from its receipt by OP.  If not complied, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

Member                                                                                Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

             President