BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:72 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 21.03.2013.
Date of Decision:29.03.2017
Tulsa Devi daughter of Shri Jai Singh, resident of VPO Kungar, Tehsil Bawani Khera, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- AMCO Batteries Limited, Auto Battery Marketing Division, Addision Buildings, 1st Floor 803 Anna Salai Chennai.
- Hero Honda Registered Office 34 Community Centre Basant Lok Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
- Chaudhary Auto Mobile Hisar, Authorized Dealer Hero Honda Motors Limited.
- India Battery House, Auto Market Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Mrs. Sudesh, Member
Mr. Parmod Kumar, Member
Present:- Shri Naresh Sihag, Advocate for complainant.
None for Ops no. 1 & 4.
Ops no. 2 & 3 exparte.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that the complainant had purchased the Hero Honda Motor Cycle Splender vide registration No. HR-16K7998 in the month of November 2011 from OP no. 3 with one year warranty. It is alleged that soon after purchase the battery of the motor cycle became defective and she lodged the complaint with OP no. 3. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, she had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and economic loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, she had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. On appearance, the Ops no. 1 & 4 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant never visited in the shop of OP no. 4 and neither made any communication nor any complaint to the answering respondents and the complainant has not purchased the above said battery from the OP no. 4. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 1 & 4 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP no. 3 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that the complainant has alleged complaint related to battery of vehicle in question supplied by OP no. 1 for which although the answering respondent has given no warranty with clear cut manifestations in its warranty card of the vehicle. It is submitted that adverse calamity conditions, non-proper re-charging of battery due to various reasons including less uses of vehicle, any defect in battery etc. could be the various reasons behind the grievances of the complainant qua the battery. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. OPs no. 2 & 3 have failed to come present. Hence they were proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 27.11.2014 & 30.01.2015..
5. In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 alongwith supporting affidavit.
6. The Ops no. 1 & 4 or his counsel is not appearing in this case for the last several hearings and the case is being adjourned time and again in the absence of the Ops no. 1 & 4. This is one of the old case pending in this District Forum, we proceed to decide this case on merits. Arguments of counsel for the complainant heard.
7. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that the complainant had purchased the motor cycle from OP no. 3 in the month of November 2011. The battery installed in the said motor cycle became defective after sometime. The complainant contacted OP no. 3, who did not taken care to the complaint of the complainant. The complainant also got served legal notice dated 03.10.2012 on the Ops no. 1 to 3.
8. We have perused the written statements of the Ops no. 1, 4 and 3. According to the written statement filed on behalf of Ops no. 1 & 4, it has been asserted that the complainant never visited the shop of OP no. 4, who is the authorized dealer of OP no. 1. The complainant never made any correspondence with Ops no. 1 & 4. It has also been stated that the battery was not purchased by the complainant from Ops no. 1 & 4. It has also been stated that if the complainant having the bill of the battery it is within the warranty period then the Ops no. 1 & 4 are ready to change the defective battery.
9. It has been stated by OP no. 3 in his written statement that in reply to the legal notice of the complainant sent the letter dated 12.10.2012 wherein it has been mentioned that the customers be deputed alongwith service book then the battery will be changed.
10. In view of the pleadings and arguments of the complainant and pleadings of the Ops no. 1, 4 & 3, we have examined the record of the case carefully. The complainant in para no. 3 of the complaint has mentioned that the OP no. 3 has given the guarantee card of the battery duly filled in. The complainant has produced the RC of the vehicle Annexure C-1, legal notice Annexure C-2, reply dated 12.10.2012 of OP no. 3 Annexure C-3. No other document has been produced by the complainant in support of her case. The complainant has not placed on the record the alleged guarantee card of the battery as stated by her in the complaint. From the perusal of the written statement of Ops no. 1, 4 & 3, it is clear that they are ready to replace the battery of the complainant if the same is defective within the warranty period. The complainant has not produced the bill of her motor cycle. The complainant has failed to adduce cogent evidence in support of her pleadings to prove that the complainant ever visited Ops no. 1, 4 & 3 and lodged the complaint about the alleged defect in the battery. The claim of the complainant cannot sustain in the absence of the cogent evidence. In these circumstances, the complaint of the complainant fails and the same is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 29.03.2017.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Parmod Kumar) (Sudesh)
Member Member
