STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
BIHAR, PATNA
Appeal No. 128 of 2020
R.K. Electronics, Shop no. 8, District Board Market, Tajpur Road, Samastipr, PS & District- Samastipur,Pin- 848101
.… Appellant
Versus
Bipin Kumar Paney, Son of Ram Binod Pandey, Resident of Bela Panchrukhi, PS- Samastipur (M), District- Samastipur
…. Respondent
Counsel for the appellant: Adv. Moti Chandra Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Surya Kant Mishra
Before,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President
Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member
Dated 28.02.2023
As per Sanjay Kumar, President.
O r d e r
Sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay in filing the present appeal, accordingly the delay is condoned.
Present appeal has been filed by R.K. Electronics, Samastipur for setting aside the order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Samastipur, whereby and wherunder the District Forum has allowed the complainant case and directed appellant to pay the price of battery within 45 days. Rs. 10,000/- as pecuniary loss, Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation within 45 days failing which interest @10% p.a shall become payable from 12.07.2018 i.e date of filing of complaint.
Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant runs a mobile shop and had purchased one battery and inverter for use in his shop from the appellant. The purchase of battery and inverter was made on 25.09.2016, the battery was of Microtek Company and there was warranty of 48 months, appellant assured him that, if there is any complainant with respect to the functioning of battery, same will be rectified, as the engineer of the Company used to come to his shop.
It is alleged in the Complaint petition that on 05.04.2018 battery stopped working and said information was given to appellant on 12.04.2018 and defective battery was also deposited to the dealer (appellant) and appellant assured complainant that defective battery will be replaced in 4-5 days. Thereafter, when complainant went on 22.04.2018 he was told by the appellant that warranty period was over and refused to replace the battery and returned the old battery and also used abusive language.
Legal notice was given on 18.05.2018 but no response was given by the appellant as such he approached the District Consumer Forum, Samastipur for payment of compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service by the appellant as well as Rs. 20,000/- as cost of litigation.
Notices were issued to the appellant but inspite of valid Service of notice he did not appear to contest the complaint case. In support of his contention complainant produced the receipt of purchase, warranty card, legal notice and documents downloaded from internet and on the basis of material placed before Consumer Forum complaint case was allowed.
Aggrieved by the order dated 17.03.2020 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Samastipur, appellant has preferred this appeal.
Appellant has admitted in memo of appeal of selling battery to complainant on 25.09.2016 but with different serial number. He has also admitted about the complaint with respect to battery not functioning made to him on 12.04.2018, however he has denied that defective battery was deposited with him.
It is submitted on behalf of appellant that proper maintenance of the battery was not done as per norms of the warranty. It was further submitted that manufacturer of the battery was not made a party as warranty is provided by the manufacturer.
It is further submitted on behalf of counsel for the appellant that complainant is businessman and is doing business and running a mobile shop and purchased a battery and inverter on 25.09.2016 from the appellant shop for running of the aforesaid business and appellant provided the battery with a warranty card for 48 months. As the battery was purchased for commercial purpose, complainant does not come within the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as such the complaint itself was not maintainable.
It is further argued that the Sr. No. of the battery as claimed by complainant was not sold by the appellant. It is further submitted that complainant never approached the appellant and had contacted the company on toll free number and the company sent the engineer to the customer point and checked the battery and found the battery was out of warranty.
It is further submitted that in terms of provision of the act if there was any manufacturing defect, then the opinion of the expert was required to be obtained however in present case no opinion of any expert was taken.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties this court is of the view that the appeal is fit to be dismissed for the following reasons.
1. Complainant had purchased the battery and inverter for his personal use in the shop and not for any commercial purpose to resale the battery as such complaint was maintainable.
2. The warranty card shows that warranty was for 48 months and in initial two years if the battery is found defective, then same has to be replaced and in present case battery stopped working within two years of its purchase.
3. Manufacturer and dealer are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective battery during warranty period and in present case it is an admitted position that battery became defective within 2 years from the date of purchase.
4. There is no reason to have expert opinion when defect in battery is accepted and is to be replaced during warranty period and replacement was wrongly denied on the pretext that period of warranty was over.
There is no merit in this appeal and is accordingly dismissed.
(Ram Prawesh Das) (Sanjay Kumar,J)
Member President
Md. Fariduzzama
