Orissa

Debagarh

cc/8/2013

Pramod Ku Goel, S/o-Purna Chand Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Durga Automobiles, (Authorised Sales and Service Dealer of Exide Battery) - Opp.Party(s)

24 Oct 2013

ORDER

 

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISTIPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DEOGARH.

                                                C.D. CASE NO.16/2013

Pramod Kumar Goel,

S/O-Purna Chanda Goel,

R/o-Word No-1, Daily Market Chowk,

Post/Dist/-Deogarh.                                                                                        …. Complainant.

                        -Versus-

1. Durga Automobiles,

(Authorised Sales & Service Dealer of Exide Battery),

L.T. Road, Sambalpur, Odisha.

2. Exide Industries Ltd.,

59E Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700020.                                          ….Opp.Parties.

 

For the Complainant: Nemo.

For the Opp.Parties:       Set-expartee.

 

Present: Sri Prabhat Kant Dash, President.

                        &

            Smt. Arati Das, Lady Member.

            DATE OF HEARING: 09.10.2013, DATE OF ORDER: 24.10.2013.

                          Sri Prabhat Kant Dash, President: - The gist of the complaint petition is that the petitioner is a permanent resident is Deogarh town on Dtd. 03.03.2012. He had purchased one Exide battery bearing model type No. IN 1500 Plus, Mfg. code 4A2, Sl. No. 417658 from the O.P No-1 for a case consideration of RS.9,500/- (Rupees Nine thousand five hundred) as per retail case invoice bearing No.15480. The said battery was purchased for the personal use of the complainant in the inverter. It is pleaded that, the O.P No.2 is the manufacture of the said battery and the O.P No.1 is the authorized dealer of Exide battery supplier & running his business all over Odisha in the name and style as “Durga Automobiles”. Who had issued the case memo to the complainant. It is further alleged that, the said battery was delivered by the O.P No.1 in the resident house of the complainant at Deogarh town after receiving the full case amounts for the sane within the jurisdiction of the court as per the sale transaction, the O.P No.1 has guaranteed 24 month Warranty plus free replacement as according to the warranty booklet guidelines issued on behalf of O.P No.2. The warranty commence from the date of purchase. It is the case of the petitioner that, while using the battery after one year the complainant detected certain major problem and observe its malfunction per which the complainant reported the detection of the defects to the O.P No.1 but the O.P did not took any effective steps for the rectification of the defects found in the battery. The complainant found the problems in using the battery again & again could perceive that, there has been a major manufacturing defect within it and accordingly again approached the O.P No.1 & 2 on various dates both in physically & telephonically but they remained silent & the complainant having failed to utilize the defective battery it was laying in the residential of the complainant in defunct condition. The defect which was occurred during the subsistence of the warranty period was painful to the complainant and according to him he has been suffering mentality, physically and pecuniary loss. Hence, the complaint arises out due to the deficiency in providing proper service caused by the Opp.Parties.

                        The complainant had filed the original case memo number 15480 Dtd.03.03.2012 and warranty booklet containing term and condition of the warranty which binds the liability of the dealer & manufacture as well as the role to be played by the dealer while selling the good & receiving defective goods.

                        The O.P No.1 filed his show cause / written version transmitting the same through post to the forum. The service of the notice of the O.P No.2 which was received by the O.P No.2 was consider sufficient but the O.P No.2 did not filed any written version in the case. Subsequently as both the O.P No.2 were remained absent during the hearing of the case they were set- expartee. The complaint petition is filed supported with verification as well as the complainant submitted that, he could not use the battery due to the breach of the warranty provided while selling the goods. We have perused the transmitted written statement filed by the O.P No.1 who vehemently question the jurisdiction of the consumer forum. Admittedly the battery was personally used by the complainant in his house at Deogarh & the detection of the defect in the battery found there in, which, situated within the jurisdiction of the forum. It is submitted by the complainant that the battery was deliver at Deogarh, subsequent to the sell which under the personal use of the complainant who was deprived of using the same during the same period.

                        On perusal of the terms & condition contemplated in the warranty booklet certain duties are casted on the dealer for registration of the battery by making arrangement for its registration sending the same to the nearest company branch. Admittedly, the warranty booklet was written & issued by the O.P. No.1. The term and condition bearing clause-1 to 8 undoubtly assumes the liability of the dealer as well as of the manufacture clause 5 of the same categorically mention that, in the event of any complaint the battery is to be return to the company authorized dealer.           

                        We have meticulously observe the pros & cons of the factual aspects of the case hand and came to conclusion that, the complainant is entitled to use a battery free of defect, during the subsistence of the warranty period, which we could find out that it is still running while deciding the case. We accordingly hold that, the complainant is entitled to the replacement of defective battery by delivering the same to the O.P No.1 in which case the O.P No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable either to replace the same or to refund the purchased price of the battery amounting to Rs. 9,500/- (Rupees Nine thousand five hundred) along with interest as compensation and accordingly order is passed as under.

                                                           

 

 

ORDER.

                        The O.P No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to replace the defective battery with a new one free of defects of the self-same rate and model within 60 days of receipt of the order by delivering the same to the complainant on event on the receiving the defective battery, failing which, the O.Ps are directed to pay the purchased price amounting to Rs.9,500/- (Rupees Nine thousand five hundred) alongwith 9% interest on the same which is calculative from the date filing of the petition till it is realize, in due process of law.

                        The office is directed to send the copy of the order to the parties, free of cost, though, regd. Post with AD, mentioning the date of delivery receipt acknowledgement thereof.

                        Order pronounced in the open court today I, e, on 24th day of October, 2013 under my hand and seal of this forum.

 

I agree,

           

                                                             

 Sd/-                                                                             Sd/

Smt. Arati Das                                                                P.K. Dash

MEMBER.                                                                    PRESIDENT.

 

 

                        Dictated and Corrected

                                    by me

 

 

                           Sd/-

              P.K. Dash                                          

                          PRESIDENT