Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 482.
Instituted on : 21.10.2020.
Decided on : 19.09.2023.
Sukhbir s/o Sh. Ramehar age 47 years r/o Village and Post Office Bahuakbarpur Tehsil and District Rohtak-124001(Haryana).
………..Complainant.
Vs.
Aditya Sales Shop no.18, Near Sheela Bye Pass, Chanakkya Puri Rohtak-124001. Home Adress: Shree Manish Kumar Sharma(Aditya Sales) s/o Sh. Inderjeet Shama H.No.11/21, Surya Nagar, opposite Mohan Service Station, behind Krishna Builders Gohana Road, Rohtak(Haryana).
……….Opposite party.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Neeraj Vashistha, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he had purchased a Lava Power Tubeler Battery LB from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.22000/- on dated 28.10.2017 having Serial Number 6717090286 and 6717090285 having 3 years warranty on it. The alleged batteries became defective in the month of September 2019 and he told the same to the opposite party. Thereafter opposite party pick up both the batteries and gave 2 small batteries as service batteries and assured the complainant that the same will be replaced soon. Thereafter complainant made numerous calls to the opposite party and he made false assurance to replace the batteries. Now he has shifted his shop to some other place and thereafter he did not respond to the complainant. Hence his complaint and it is prayed that opposite party may kindly be directed to replace the batteries and to give appropriate compensation to the complainant..
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party. Opposite party in its reply has submitted that at the time of selling the batteries the answering respondent clearly told to the complainant that in case of any defect occurred in the battery then he has to inform service centre and his batteries will be repaired. In case of any defect in batteries it is the duty of the service centre to repair the same and this fact was clearly told to the complainant. The answering opposite party has supplied good quality batteries to the complainant and in case of any defect in the batteries, it is the duty of the service centre to repair the same. The answering opposite party has never given any assurance to the complainant at any point of time. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and answering opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant in any manner. It is prayed that complaint of the complainant qua the answering respondent may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3 and closed his evidence on dated 03.06.2022. Opposite party in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Mark-A to Mark-B and closed his evidence on 18.04.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by both the parties. As per the bill Ex.C1 complainant had purchased the batteries in question from the opposite party on dated 28.10.2017 for Rs.16800/- with 36 months(three years) warranty. As per complaint and affidavit filed by the complainant, the alleged batteries got defective within warranty period but despite repeated requests of the complaint, the same has not been replaced by the opposite party. At the time of arguments, complainant has placed on record copy of bill ‘Annexure-JN-A, which shows that complainant had purchased new batteries for Rs.15.06.2021 as the defective batteries were not replaced by the opposite party. On the other hand, it is not denied by the opposite party that the defective batteries were picked up by the opposite party for replacement. Opposite party has not placed on record any document to prove that the alleged batteries were not defective. But the same have not been replaced by the opposite party during warranty period. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of batteries purchased from the opposite party i.e. Rs.16800/-(Rupees sixteen thousand and eight hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9%p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 21.10.2020 till its realization and also to pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the service batteries in question to the opposite party at the time of making payment by the opposite party.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.09.2023.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
................................................
Vijender Singh, Member
