Kerala

Idukki

CC/157/2020

Biju Joseph - Complainant(s)

Versus

Babu Battery center - Opp.Party(s)

15 Dec 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :12.11.2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 15^th day of December, 2021

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.157/2020

Between

Complainant : Biju Joseph, S/o. T.N. Joseph,

Throgamparambil,

Sagara Junction, Kattappana,

Idukki.

And

Opposite Party : Babu,

Kattappana Battery Centre,

Near Town Hall,

Opposite Substation, Kattappana.

Idukki.

 

O R D E R

 

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

Brief facts of the complaint are hereunder :

1. Complainant purchased a battery worth Rs.6400/- for his Jeep from opposite party on 25.4.2018. Opposite party is an authorized dealer of Amco Batteries. At the time of purchasing the battery, opposite party had given warranty card with 84 month warranty to complainant.

2. At the initial stage, the battery was working smoothly. But, after 16 months, it turned out to be sluggish and starting time of vehicle was more than normal. Complainant approached opposite party and informed about slowing of the battery. But opposite party replied that the slugging might be due to (cont….2)

- 2 -

weak charging and then again he put the battery for charging. But even after that, the problem persisted. On 4.9.2019, complainant again approached opposite party for replacing or servicing of the battery. But opposite party did not take any steps to solve the defect of the battery. These acts of opposite party amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint is for getting the following reliefs:-

(a) Opposite party may be directed to refund the price of battery Rs.6,400/- to complainant.

(b) Opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation.

(c) Such other reliefs.

 

3. This commission has served notice to opposite party. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version.

 

4. According to opposite party, he was ready to replace the battery which is having the warranty. But, this complainant did not approach him at any time for defaults of battery. If complainant returns the battery along with warranty card, opposite party will be given new battery instead of the defaulted battery. Opposite party stated in his version that Amco battery company was locked due to Covid 19 Pandemic circumstances, so it is not available now. Opposite party is a sub-dealer of Amco battery. If Amco battery will available, he would give such battery. Otherwise, he is ready to give another one if complainant is interested. Hence, complaint may be dismissed and opposite party may be permitted to replace the defaulted battery and exclude opposite party from this complaint.

5. Complainant did not adduce evidence. He has produced copy of warranty card along with complaint. Opposite party was present in person before this Commission and submitted that he is ready to replace the defective battery if complainant produces it along with warranty card. But complainant was absent and he has not produced the defective battery along with warranty card. Also, there was no representation for him. Hence it was taken for orders. Complainant has not proved that he had approached opposite party along with the

(cont….3)

- 3 -

defaulted battery for replacing it or that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party. In the result, complaint is dismissed without cost.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 15^th day of December, 2021

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

APPENDIX : Nil.

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT