View 397 Cases Against Battery
Satish kumar filed a consumer case on 18 Jun 2014 against EXcel Battery in the Gurgaon Consumer Court. The case no is CC/100/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 24 Mar 2015.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No.100 of 2014 Date of Institution: 02.04.2014 Date of Decision: 11.02.2015
Satish Kumar S/o Sh. Dharam Pal R/o H.No.89, Sector 15 Part I, Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
….Opposite parties.
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.RAGHVINDER SINGH BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Rahul Yadav, Adv for the complainant.
OP-1 & O P-2 exparte
ORDER R.S.BAHMANI, PRESIDENT.
The complainant alleged that he has purchased 2 Exide Batteries IN 1500 Plus bearing Sr.No.3B1-18333 and 3C1-99228 manufactured by OP-2 from OP-1 on 22.08.2011 for a sum of Rs.20400 @ Rs.10,200/- each vide Invoice No.5694 dated 22.08.2011 (C-1) with two years Warranty and produced Warranty Card (C-2). The complainant further alleged that Batteries were running smoothly and properly without any complaint or interruption till 02.08.23013 when unfortunately one Battery bearing Code No.3B1, Sr.No.18333 bursted of its own with heavy sound and also damaged the new purchased and valuable crockery placed near to the Battery worth Rs. 1 Lac. It is further alleged that due to the explosion of the Battery another Battery installed also damaged. However, both the Batteries were within the Warranty at the time of explosion. It is further alleged that complainant informed OP-1. On receipt of the information from the complainant OP-1 sent its mechanic to the residence of the complainant who collected the damaged Batteries on 03.08.2013 with the assurance that the defective Batteries would be replaced with new one very soon. The complainant produced the copy of Letter sent to OP-1 (C-3) (which shows the seal of the OP-1 with the endorsement “Received Batteries” on 03.08.2013). The complainant further alleged that the complainant requested the OPs time and again to supply the new Batteries in place of damaged one but of no use. Consequently, complainant also sent registered Legal Notice dated 20.11.2013 but of no use (Copy of Legal Notice is C-4 and Postal Receipts are C-5). Thus, the OPs are deficient in providing services to the complainant. Thus, he is entitled to replacement of new Batteries with the same model or refund of its price Rs.20,400/-. He is also claimed damages of Rs.1 Lacs and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents referred above.
2 Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP-1 failed to turn up despite service and was proceeded exparte on 02.05.2014 while OP-2 initially appeared on 02.05.2014 but later on failed to turn up and was proceeded exparte on 18.06.2014.
3 We have heard the complainant and appraised the material on record carefully. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed above we are of the considered opinion that he has purchased 2 Exide Batteries IN 1500 Plus bearing Sr.No.3B1-18333 and 3C1-99228 manufactured by OP-2 from OP-1 on 22.08.2011 for a sum of Rs.20400 @ Rs.10,200/- each vide Invoice No.5694 dated 22.08.2011 (C-1) with two years Warranty and produced Warranty Cards (C-2). He has alleged that unfortunately on 02.08.2013 one Battery bearing manufacturing Code No.3B1 Sr.No.18333 bursted of its own with heavy sound and also damaged the new purchased and valuable crockery placed near to the Batteries costing Rs.1 Lac. However, the above Batteries were within the Warranty period of 24 months. He informed OP-1 regarding the above said incident vide Application (C-3) who collected the Batteries from the house of the complainant and made an endorsement on the Application itself “Received Batteries on 03.08.2013 with seal of OP-1” which shows that the complainant deposited the above said Batteries with OP-1 for its replacement but the OPs failed to replace the damaged Batteries with new one. He also got served a Registered Legal Notice dated 20.11.2013 to the OPs but of no use. However, the evidence produced by the complainant goes unrebutted as the OPs failed to rebut the claim of the complainant. Thus, the OP-2 being the manufacturer is deficient in providing services to the complainant as due to manufacturing defect the Battery bursted which also caused damage to another Battery.
4 Consequently, the complainant is entitled to replacement of new Exide Batteries of the same model or refund of its price Rs 20,400/- from the manufacturer OP-2. The OP-2 has also harassed the complainant causing mental agony and thus, is entitled to Rs.5,000/-. The complainant is also entitled to litigation expenses of Rs.3,000/-.
Compliance be made within 30 days.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.
Pronounced in open court.
Dated: 11.02.2015.
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.