Distrct bar filed a consumer case on 24 Jul 2018 against Exice industries in the Kurukshetra Consumer Court. The case no is 78/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 03 Aug 2018.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.
Complaint Case No.78 of 2018.
Date of institution: 06.04.2018.
Date of decision: 24.07.2018.
District Bar Association, Kurukshetra through its Secretary.
…Complainant.
Versus
….Respondents.
BEFORE SH. G.C.Garg, President.
Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.
Present: Sh. Bajrang Sharma, Adv. for the complainant.
Ops exparte.
ORDER
This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant District Bar Association through its Secretary against Exide Industries and another, the opposite parties.
2. It is stated in the complaint that the complainant purchased four Exide Batteries from the Op No.2 for a sum of Rs.3200/- (Rs.800/- each) for installing the same in the lift used by the Advocates of the Association. It is alleged that from the very beginning, the said batteries were having manufacturing defect and having no back-up/charging and when the light electricity goes, the lift become stand still due to non-functioning of batteries and even the advocates and the clients etc. who were in side in the lift at that time, could not come outside and they confined in the lift room. It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Ops several times for replacement of said defective batteries but the Ops did not do so. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to refund the cost of batteries and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.
3. Upon notice, the OPs did not appear and opted to proceed exparte vide order dt. 17.05.2018.
4. To prove his case, ld. counsel for the complainant placed on file affidavit, copy of invoice dt.12.09.2017 and copy of resolution dt. 05.03.2018.
5. We have heard ld. counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully and minutely.
6. From the cash memo, it is clear that the batteries in question were purchased by the complainant from the Op No.2 on 12.09.2017 for the sale consideration of Rs.3200/-. From the record, it is clear that the batteries in question became defective within the guarantee period. The complainant has supported his versions by filing his affidavit and copy of cash memo. There is no rebuttal on the part of Ops. So, the evidence adduced by the complainant goes unrebutted and unchallenged. In these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to get the batteries replaced with the new one from the Op No.1, who is manufacturer of mobile set.
7. In view of our above said discussion, the complaint of the complainant is allowed and we direct the OP No.1 to replace the batteries with the new one of the same model. The complainant is directed to deposit the old defective batteries with the service-centre of Ops. The order; be complied within a period of 60 days, failing which, penal action under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be initiated against the opposite party No.1. Copy of this order be communicated to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:24.07.2018.
(G.C.Garg)
President.
(Anamika Gupta)
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.