DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No. 73 of 3.3.2017
Decided on: 22.3.2018
Gurudwara Sahib Asmanpur, through its Authorized representative sh.Gurinder Pal Singh son of Sh.Harbhajan Singh aged 57 years r/o House No.903/3, Khalsa Mohalla, Patiala.
…………...Complainant
Versus
1. Dhillon Auto Electric Works, Ghagga Road, Samana, District Patiala, through its Proprietor.
2. M.TEK POWER, D-7, Udhyog Nagar, Rohat Road, New Delhi-110041, through its M.D.
…………Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Neena Sandhu, President
Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate, counsel for complainant.
Opposite Party No.1 exparte.
Sh.Jaswant Rai, Authorized, representative of
Opposite Party No.2.
ORDER
SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER
- The complainant purchased one battery alongwith inverter model 1600 ORS vide bill No.221 dated 18.8.2015 for a sum of Rs.16,200/-.It is averred that on 14.12.2016, there was a sudden break down in the battery and the complainant made a telephonic call on the toll free number of OP no.2 i.e. the service centre. The technician of OP no.2 came and after checking the same told the complainant that he will come alongwith another technician as the defect in the battery was not curable. It is further averred that when no one turned up, the complainant again made a call to Op no.2 on 24.1.2017 but was surprised to hear from OP no.2 that the battery was out of warranty, whereas the battery was under warranty for 36 months. The said battery and inverter was placed in the hall of the Gurudwara Sahib where the devotees pay their obeisance and due to non working of the battery, the devotees also underwent harassment. The said battery was within the warranty and OPs were bound to rectify the same which they failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Ultimately the complainant approached this Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act(for short the Act),1986.
- On notice, OP no.1 did not appear despite service and was thus proceeded against exparte. Whereas OP no.2 appeared through its representative and filed its written version. In its preliminary objections, the only plea taken by OP no.2 is that it gives 2.5 months grace period to its distributors and dealer as the batteries have a definite self line for use. But in the present case, the battery was sold later than 2.5 months and the same warranty could have been revalidated by informing OP no.2 but the OP no.1 failed to inform OP no.2 for the late sale of the battery. On merits, it is stated that when OP no.2 received the complaint on its toll free number, its service engineer after checking the battery prepared the test report as per the observation and submitted the same to the head office. As per the data, the battery was showing out of warranty due to reason, late sale by Op no.1.Hence the claim was rejected initially but lateron Op no.2 offered to replace the battery with a new one, which the complainant refused to accept. As such Op no.2 can not be said to be deficient in service and it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
- In support of the complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered in evidence Ex.CA affidavit of Sh.Gurinder Pal Singh, representative alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C3 and closed evidence of the complainant.
- Sh.Jaswant Rai, representative of OP no.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPA his own affidavit alongwith documents Exs.OP1 and OP2 and closed evidence .
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant, representative of OP no.2 and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C2 is the invoice, whereby the complainant purchased the battery and inverter from OP No.2 on 18.8.2015. Ex.C3 is the warranty card which shows that the said battery was under warranty for 18 months. The battery in question got defective on 14.12.2016 i.e. within the warranty period. OP no.2 is the ‘Battery Test Report’ dated 27.1.2017, showing ‘Test fail’ which means the battery was defective. We find that the battery got defective during the warranty period and the OP no.2 was bound to rectify the same which it failed to do and it amounted to deficiency in service on its part.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the complaint of the complainant against OP no.2 only. OP no.1 is merely a seller and the warranty if any is provided by Op no.2 only. OP No.2 is hereby directed to replace the battery with a new one with requisite warranty and is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-as cost of litigation expenses. Order be complied by the OP No.2 within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copies of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED
DATED:22.3.2018
NEENA SANDHU
PRESIDENT
NEELAM GUPTA
MEMBER
