DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C. NO. 08 OF 2014
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President.
Miss Sudhira laxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Swarup Ranjan Naik, aged – 35 years.
At: Amalapada, Jail Road.
PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal ………………. Complainant.
Versus.
1. Arjuna Senapati and Sons.
At: Main Road, Phulbani.
PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal.
2. Su-Kam Power System Limited.
Service Centre. 196-C (Basement) Udyog vihar
Phase – VI Sector – 37. Gurgaon-122001.
Haryana (India).
3. H.S.B Sydicate Distributor Su-kam Battery
Dolua Street, Berhampur, Ganjam. ………………. OPP. Parties.
For the Complainant: Binapani Pradhan, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party : None.
Date of Order: 11-05-2015.
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in short is that he had purchased a Su-Kam battery vide Battery type SLA 150AH 18 SL NO. 02301A51381812103432 amounting Rs. 10,200/- from the Opposite Party No.1 on 10-02-2013. But during last week of January 2014 the said battery was not working properly. So, the Complainant returned the battery to Opposite Party No.1 as the battery was within the warranty period. The warranty period of battery covers 18 months from the date of purchase. The Opposite party No.1 send the same to Opposite Party No.2 for check-up and replacement but the Opposite Party No.2 refused for replacement of the battery. Then, the Opposite Party No.2 returned the battery to the Complaiannt. Due to the act of the Opposite Parties the Complainant sustained mental agony and financial loss , he has filed this complaint for a direction to the Opposite Parties to replace the battery as the battery is within the warranty period and to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony and litigation cost .
-2-
In this case the Opposite Party were set exparte on 07-04-2015 as they have not filed their version in spite of getting notice from this Forum.
We have heard the learned advocate of the Complainant. We have gone though the complaint petition and the copies of the documents filed by the Complainant in support of his case. The Opposite Parties are not interested to contest the case, the reason best known to them. It is the responsibility of the Opposite Parties to take appropriate steps if the battery was not working properly within warranty period .Non compliance of this provision amounts to deficiency in service .Accordingly the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service on their part. Hence, we allow the complaint filed by the Complainant in absence of any counter by the Opposite Parties .Hence the Opposite parties No.2 & 3 are directed to supply a new battery to the Complainant by receiving the old battery through O.P No.1 within 30 days from the receipt of this order . They are further directed to give compensation of Rs. 3,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss of the complainant and to pay Rs. 2,000/- only towards cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of failure the Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3 jointly and severally shall pay Rs. 10,200/- to the Complainant with 8 % annum interest from the date of filing of this case i.e. on 20-03-2014 till the date of payment along with the awarded compensation and cost of litigation. Otherwise the Complainant shall claim the above amount from the Opposite Party No.2 & 3 as per law.
The C.C is disposed of. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
