Haryana

Ambala

CC/157/2015

Manish Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ajanta Battery Service - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Joshi

21 Apr 2016

ORDER

               BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:  AMBALA

                     Complaint Case No.            :       157 OF 2015

                        Date of Institution              :       09-06-2015

                        Date of Decision         :               21.04.2016

Manish Sharma son of Sh. Uma Shankar, resident of village Khanpur Brahaman, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt. Ambala.

:::::::Complainant.

                                                                                                Versus

1. M/s Ajanta Battery Service, shop No. 121, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt.
2. Exide Battery Industry Ltd; Exide House, 3E/1, Link Road, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi-110055.

:::::::Opposite Parties.

        Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:            SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

Present:-           Sh.R.K.Joshi, Adv. counsel for complainant

                        OPs  ex-parte.               

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one battery of exide Inva Master 10000, bearing serial No. IPF/11315/77371 vide bill No. 10567 dated 4-7-2014 costing Rs.12,800/- from OP No.1 with a warranty of 36 months as the price of old battery i.e. Rs.3300/-was adjusted in the bill and thus complainant paid Rs.9500/- to OP No.1. Said battery was installed at the residence of complainant and initially back up of the battery was only for 2 hours. Complainant brought this fact in the notice of OP No.1 upon which the OP No.1 assured to the complainant that with the passage of the time i.e. after 3 / 4 months, back up capacity of battery will be increased but after 3 months i.e. during the winter season, the necessity of inverter & battery decreased. Again in the month of April 2015, when summer season started, the requirement of battery & inverter increased and the complainant was surprised to see that back up capacity has further decreased to 1 hour and thus the complainant made the telephonic complaint to OP No.1  whereupon OP No.1 again assured the complainant by repeating his earlier version. Thereafter in the month of May 2015, complainant brought the defective battery to the shop of OP No.1, where the OP no.1 kept defective battery with him for about 4 days and returned the same with the assurance that necessary repairs has been done  and now there is no defect in the battery in question. Thereafter complainant re-installed the battery at his house again where the back up of the battery further decreased to only 30 minutes. So, the complainant asked the OPs to replace the said defective battery  with the new battery  as the same is under the warranty period of 36 months but the OP No.1 neither replaced the battery in question nor  returned the price of the battery.  In this way, the battery in question supplied by the OP was defective one and having manufacturing defect from the very beginning to which the opposite party failed to replace with a new one within the warranty period which is admittedly unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

2.          Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared but did not bother to file reply and as such, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dt.4-4-2016 whereas OP no.2 failed to appear before the forum on the first date despite service through Regd. post. and as such, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10-9-2015. 

 

 

3.           To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-4 and closed his evidence.

 

4.          After  hearing  the  complainant  and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-2 that the battery of Exide company was sold by opposite party No.1 to the complainant on 4-7-2014. Further, it is also not in dispute vide Annexure C-3 that the battery was having a warranty of thirty six months from the date of its purchase and it became defective during the warranty period as the complainant also made complaint in this regard to OP No.2 vide complaint No.NHAHO-150601050 & NHAHO 150524183 on 28-5-2015 & 2-6-2015 respectively as mentioned in Annexure C-4. Further the contentions of complainant goes un-rebutted as OP No.1 did not bother to contest the matter despite appearance  through counsel  and OP No.2 also did not bother to appear despite service and as such, we have no option except to believe the version of the complainant.

 

                So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that battery sold to the complainant by the OPs  was defective from its very beginning and was not maintaining the proper back up capacity as assured by OP No.1 rather decreasing day by day. Further on the repeated asking of the complainant, the battery in question was neither rectified nor replaced by the OPs. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OPs. Accordingly we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

1. to replace the battery in question with new one of the same model and if same model is not available, then to return Rs.12800/- i.e. cost of the battery to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filling of complaint to till date.

 

2. to  pay  Rs. 3,000/- as  compensation  for  harrasment and mental agony etc.

 

3. also to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigations etc.

Further the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced:21.04.2016                                              Sd/-

                                                                        ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                    PRESIDENT

                                           Sd/-

                                ( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )

                                                     MEMBER