BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.131/14.
Date of instt.: 14.07.2014.
Date of Decision: 14.05.2015.
Suresh Kumar Verma, son of Sh. Chhajju Ram, Village Kalayat, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
1. Dev. Electronics, Railway Road, Kalayat, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal.
2. D.G. Power, D-7, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for complainant.
Sh. Bharat, Auth.Reprt. for the opposite party.No.1.
Sh. Jai Parkash, Service-Engineer for Op No.2.
ORDER
(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that on 23.02.2012, the complainant purchased a D.G. Tubular Battery for sum of Rs.11,500/- from Op No.1 against the guarantee of 30 months. It is alleged that the said battery became defective from the very beginning. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops for replacement of said battery but the Ops did not do so. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement separately. Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the complainant approached the answering Op after the expiry of guarantee period; There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. Op No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections that that the present complaint is false and frivolous; that in the present complaint, the complainant concealed the fact from this Forum that the battery allegedly purchased by him was having pro-rata warranty period of (24+6) months which is clearly mentioned on the warranty card of the battery; that in the present matter not a single complaint except the present complaint was registered by the complainant against the answering Op No.2; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.
5. We have heard both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.
6. We have perused the complaint & replies thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties.
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that on 23.02.2012, the complainant purchased a D.G. Tubular Battery for sum of Rs.11,500/- from Op No.1 against the guarantee of 30 months. Ld. Counsel for the complainant contends that the said battery became defective from the very beginning. The Auth. Reprt. for the Op No.1 contends that the guarantee of said battery was two years and the complainant approached the Op No.1 regarding the defective battery after the expiry of said guarantee period. Sh. Bharat Gautam, the Auth. Reprt. on behalf of Op No.1 has also tendered in evidence affidavit (Ex.RW1/A) in this regard. The complainant has failed to prove any expert evidence which could prove that the said battery became defective during the guarantee period. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Ops.
8. Thus, in view of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and dismiss the same. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.14.05.2015.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Presiding Member.
