Yogesh filed a consumer case on 21 Apr 2016 against Ajanta in the Ambala Consumer Court. The case no is CC/220/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 22 Apr 2016.
Haryana
Ambala
CC/220/2015
Yogesh - Complainant(s)
Versus
Ajanta - Opp.Party(s)
In Person
21 Apr 2016
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:AMBALA
Complaint Case No. : 220 OF 2015
Date of Institution : 13-08-2015
Date of Decision : 21.04.2016
Yogesh son of Sh. Mohan Lal, resident of H.No.73-B, Harmilap Nagar, near DRM office, Ambala Cantt.
:::::::Complainant.
Versus
M/s Ajanta Battery Service, shop No. 121, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt through its authorized signatory/ Manager.
:::::::Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
CORAM: SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT
SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER
Present:- Complainant in person.
OPs ex-parte.
O R D E R
Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased a battery 7500 fusolite Tubuler 170 AM bearing serial No. 6088583 vide bill No. 614 dated 11-7-2014 costing Rs.11,200/- from OP with a warranty of 30 months with assurance of very good quality and in case of any defect, OP will settle all the disputes. After purchasing the battery, same did not working properly and thus complainant showed the battery to another mechanic who told the complainant that the battery is old one & not new rather cover is new & spare parts are old and is in dead condition. So, complainant approached the OP/ respondent alongwith the battery but the respondent told that “we have kept your battery and when we will got time, we will check and inform you as you have not purchased me by giving money. Thereafter the complainant is running from the pillar to post in order to get the replacement of the defective battery with new one but the OP neither replaced/repaired nor returned the price of the battery. In this way, act of OP in not replacing the defective battery is a deficiency in service on the part of OP. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.
Upon notice, OP put in appearance through counsel on the first date of hearing but did not bother to appear on the next date and thus he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 7-10-2015.
To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith document as Annexure C-1 and closed his evidence.
After perusal of case file minutely, it reveals that the complainant himself has failed to prove his own version as he alleged that he has shown the battery to other mechanic, but no any report or affidavit of that mechanic qua defect in the alleged battery has been placed on record to substantiate his version. Further, complainant has only filed a copy of bill Annexure C-1 (bill dt.11-7-2014) on the record wherefrom nothing is proved qua defect in the alleged battery.
So, in view of the facts discussed above, the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case and thus we have no option except to dismiss the present complaint. As such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced:21.04.2016
Sd/-
( A.K.SARDANA)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )
MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.