Complainant is present through his ld. Advocate and files hazira. Complainant also filed some documents as per firisti and also filed Affidavit-in-Chief.
Though hazira was filed on behalf of the OP, yet no application is made on behalf of the OP to give an opportunity to contest the case by filing any written version. As such, the hazira is not accepted.
Today is fixed for ex-parte hearing of the instant case.
Complainant is examined.
Ld.lawyer for the complainant submits that the complainant purchased one new UPS Tubler Battery being no. BT1400 from OP at a cost of Rs. 11,000/- on 19-03-2010 having an warranty for 2 years; that the complainant experienced great difficulty with the said battery in the month of November 2011 and informed the matter to OP over phone, but they did not take any positive step to repair the same; that when his repeated requests proved futile, he approached the office of Asst. Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices (CA&FBP), Purba Medinipur Regional Office on 01.03.2012 for remedy and the said office directed the OP to expedite replacement of the defective battery but in vain, hence the case.
In support of his claim, complainant submitted original Tax Invoice dt. 19-03-2010 issued by OP, Warranty Card, copy of his complaint dt. 01.03.2012 to CA&FBP etc.
Heard the submission of ld. lawyer for the complainant, considered.Seen the petition of complaint, Affidavit-in-Chief and documents filed by the complainant.
It is observed from the postal AD Card that OP received the notice issued by this forum on 06.03.2013. However, despite receipt of notice, they did not turn up to contest the case on several dates. Hence, the case is heard ex-parte.
On perusal of the Warranty Card it is observed that the battery in question was under warranty for the period from 11-03-2010 to 11-03-2012. It is reported by the complainant that the said battery started malfunctioning during the middle of November 2011 and he immediately informed the OP about such fact, however, the OP did not take any step to repair the same. On a closer look of the order passed by Asst. Director, CA&FBP dt. 02.07.2012, it transpires that the OP, who acts as a dealer of the battery manufacturer, sent the battery to the latter for replacement and accordingly,Asst. Director, CA&FBP directed OP to arrange for replacement of the defective batter at the earliest. While the product was under warranty, the dealer as well as the manufacturer of the battery was jointly and severally liable to repair/replace the same without any delay. However, it is obvious from the materials on record that the OP neither repaired the battery nor replaced the same with a defect-free battery though a long time has elapsed since the defective battery was handed over to them.
Therefore, on consideration of the materials on record including the Affidavit-in-Chief of the complainant and documents on record, we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP and as such, the complainant is entitled to relief as to replacement of the defective battery with a defect free battery of similar model or the present value of battery of similar model in cash along with compensation of Rs. 2,500/- and litigation cost Rs. 1,000/-.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the instant C.Case no. 09/2013 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the OP. OP is directed to either replace the defective battery with a new battery of similar model together with an additional warranty period of 1 year from the date of delivery of new battery or return the present value of the battery of similar model in cash to the complainant together with compensation for an amount of Rs. 2,500/- and litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/- within 45 days from the date of communication of this order i.d. the complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law in which case, OP shall be liable to pay fine @ Rs. 100/- per diem from the date of this order till compliance of this order in toto.
S.S. Ali A.K. Bhattacharyya
Member President
