STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 270 of 2011

Abhimanyu Mistri, Son of Ramjee Sahani at Ddudhhi, PS- Harsidhi at present at and PO- Main Road, Harshidhi, District- East Champaran

                                                                                                                              .… Appellant/ Opposite Party no. 1)

Versus

Baidhnath Sahani, Son of Dhuran Sahni, Resident of Pakaria, Kubre Tola, PS- Harsidhi, District- East Champaran

                                                                                                                                    …. Respondent/Complainant

For the appellant: Adv. Anang Mohan Sinha

For the Respondent:

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 15.02.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

Present appeal has been filed on behalf Appellant- Opposite party no.1 for setting aside the order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Complaint Case no. 115 of 2009 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, East Champaran at Motihari whereby and whereunder the District Consumer Forum, has directed appellant/opposite party no. 1 to pay cost  of battery of Rs. 5,200/- and amount of compensation as Rs. 3,000/- i.e Total Rs. 8,200/- to the Respondent-complainant

Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant had purchased a Jumbo make battery on 26.04.2008 having serial no. 214434 at the cost of Rs. 5,200/- from O.P. no. 1 who gave also warranty card bearing signature of O.P. no. 1 upon which battery code number and battery serial number were written.

          Complainant attached purchased battery with his tractor but it started malfunctioning from very beginning. Complainant made a complaint with this regard to the O.P no.1 upon which he brought back the battery and repaired it and gave to the complainant but after few days battery again stopped working  and again O.P. no.1 brought the battery for repair but thereafter never returned the battery to the complainant. Complainant  gave a legal notice on 22.06.2009 but still when no action was taken by the O.P. no.1, Complainant filed consumer complaint case for refund of price of battery as well as grant of compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of litigation. Complainant in support of his claim filed affidavit and copy of warranty booklet.

          Opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 appeared and filed their written statement in which O.P. no. 1  admitted to be in business of battery but Opposite party no. 1 in his written statement denied any battery to be sold to complainant. Complainant has not produced original purchase receipt as well as warranty card. O.P. no. 2 supported the stand of opposite party no. 1.

          In support of his claim case complainant has adduced two witnesses who have deposed that complainant purchased the battery from opposite party no. 1 in their presence, although District Consumer Forum has found some discrepancies in the testimony of both witnesses but such minor discrepancies were not enough to discard their testimony. On appreciation of evidence on record both oral and documentary District Consumer Forum found that signature of O.P. no. 1 on affidavit matches with the signature on warranty card which is sufficient to establish that complainant has purchased the battery from O.P. no. 1. O.P. no. 1 has not denied that copy of warranty card does not bear his signature. O.P. no. 1 has also not refuted the allegation that battery was once repaired and thereafter it again became defective and brought back by O.P. no. 1 for repair but it was neither repaired nor returned to complainant.

          District Consumer Forum has finally held that complainant has been able to prove the he had purchased battery from O.P. no. 1 and it became defective during warranty period but same was neither repaired nor returned to the complainant as such deficiency in service stands established and allowed the complaint case of complainant.

                    Aggrieved by the order present appeal has been filed on behalf of O.P. no. 1. No fresh ground has been raised by the appellant  in this appeal. Grounds taken before the District Consumer Forum were reiterated.

          It is argued on behalf of counsel for the appellant that in absence of original purchase receipt and warranty card District Consumer Forum has erroneously held that complainant purchased the battery from O.P. no. 1. As a matter of fact complainant had not purchased battery from O.P. no. 1.

          We agree with the reasoning given by District Consumer Forum with respect to finding recorded by it that complainant had purchased the battery from O.P. no. 1/appellant.  We concur with the view expressed by District Consumer Forum which is based on sound reasoning and proper appreciation of material placed on record.

          No other ground were raised or submitted by counsel for the appellant.

          Considering the material available on record including the grounds taken in Memo of appeal this Commission does not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by the District Consumer Forum requiring any interference by this Commission in appeal.

          The appeal is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                           (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                            President

Md. Fariduzzama