FINAL ORDER
SRI A. K. BHATTACHARYYA,
Briefly stated, the facts of the instant case are that the complainant purchased one ‘HERO ELECTRIC BIKE’ being model no. ‘M AXI-J1562’ from the op. party on 18-10-2012 for a consideration of Rs. 33,500/. The complainant faced trouble with the said purchased bike on and from 10/05/2013 in relation to its charger as the same was not functioning for which the battery of the bike was not charging. He submitted the charger on 13/05/2013 before the OP within the warranty period for replacement or repairing, but the OP did not pay any heed to such request of the petitioner for change the same. For refusal of his request, the complainant was compelled to purchase a new charger on 12/08/2013 with a price of Rs. 3,150/. Thereafter, the battery of the said bike did not function on 28/08/2013. Again the petitioner reported the OP within warranty period for repairing the same but the OP refused to do the same in despite of written letter though the OP refused to accept the same, hence the case.
It appears from the record that the OP did not appear to dispute the allegations contained in the complaint in spite of service of notice upon it. As a result, the instant case was heard ex-parte on 19/05/2014.
In order to support his case, the complainant has filed the following documents .original as per list.:-
Tax Invoice of Hero Electric bike MAXI-J1562, Owner’s manual, postal receipt, Tax invoice in respect of extra charger, receipt copy of complaint letter dt. 05/08/2013.
Point for determination
- Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as sought for?
Decisions with reasons
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint, W/N/A and the documents filed by complainant on record. Considered the same submissions of the complaint which he advanced before us on 19-05-2014 in person.
The original Tax Invoice dt. 18/10/2012 of the OP on record goes to show that the complainant purchased the said bike on payment of Rs. 33,500/ from the OP and from the photocopy of letter dt. 05/08/2013 of the complainant addressed to the OP .who received it on 05-08-2013. indicates that the complainant made request to OP in writing for defect of the charger and to replace the same within warranty period as the warranty produced before us supported the contention of the complainant.
The materials on record also support that the complainant had to purchase the new charger as OP refused to change the same within the warranty period. The above contention of the complainant remains unchallenged.
In the light of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Op for not repairing/replacing the defective charger within the warranty period. As such, the complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the instant C. Case no. 110/2013 be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the OP. The OP is directed to replace the charger of the said bike of the complainant and/or to pay the same value of the charger with compensation of Rs. 8,000/ and litigation cost Rs. 2,000/ within 40 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the fine of Rs. 150/ per day shall be imposed upon the Op from the date of communication of this order till realization of above total amount. The complainant shall have liberty to execute this order if the Op does not comply with the above directive/order.
Sd/ Sd/
Member President
