Haryana

Rewari

CC/240/2011

Rambir - Complainant(s)

Versus

Exide Industries Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Naveen Yadav

27 Jan 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,   REWARI.

 

                                                Consumer Complaint No: 240 of 2011.

Date of Institution:    26.4.2011.

Date of Decision:      27.1.2015.

 

Rambir son of Shri Attar Singh resident of H. No. 46, Village Rudh, Tehsil  Bawal   Distt. Rewari. 

 

                                                                         …....Complainant.

                                      Versus

 

1)    G.M./ MD/ Prop., Exide Industries Limited, plot no. 26, South City, hear Rajesh Pilot Chowk, Bolni Road, Rewari, Tehsil and   Distt. Rewari. 

2)      Rajendra Automobiles, plot no.2, Harchandpur Road, Near Durga Mandir Bawal, Distt. Rewari through its proprietor/owner (authorized dealer of Hero Honda).

 

                                                                 ….…Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 12  of Consumer Protection Act

 

 

        Before:  Shri  Raj  Kumar ………. …..………..PRESIDENT

                       Shri Kapil Dev Sharma…………………MEMBER

                      

Present :          Shri  Naveen Yadav , Advocate for the complainant.

                        Opposite parties  no. 1 and 2 exparte.

                      

                                           ORDER

 

 Per  Raj Kumar President

 

                             Factual matrix comprising the case of the complainant, shorn of details, is that the he had purchased a Hero Honda Motor Cycle from opposite party no.2 but its battery did not give proper back up to the vehicle and as such a complaint was made on 16.2.2011   upon which it was told to him that due to dead cells, the problem had occurred and  the battery was deposited with opposite party no.1 on 18.2.2011  for replacement of the same being having manufacturing defect.   But the opposite parties refused to replace the same with the remarks “warranty not accepted”; hence this complaint.

2)                         On notice, opposite party no.1 did not put in an appearance and as such it was proceeded exparte. Opposite party no.2 in its reply admitted that some problem has arisen in the                 battery of the motorcycle of the complainant and the battery was deposited with opposite party no.1 for replacement through opposite party no.2 but till date the opposite party no.1 has neither replaced the battery nor returned the same.   It is also averred that opposite party no.1 is solely liable to replace the battery of the complainant being manufacturer.  The other contents have been denied with the prayer of dismissal of the complaint.  Lateran, opposite party no.2 opted himself not to appear and as such it was also proceeded exparte.

3)                         We have heard the counsel for the complainant and

gone through both oral as well as documentary evidence on the file thoroughly. 

4)                         A perusal of the file goes to show that opposite party no.1 is the authorized distributor of  Exide battery  while opposite party no.2 is dealer of  Hero Honda Company Limited.  A perusal of Ex. C-6 goes to show that the complainant is the owner of the vehicle. It also bears an endorsement that for the purpose of warranty of the motorcycle the company i.e. Hero Honda Motor  will also include the warranty of tyre tube and battery.  The complainant also served legal notice but the same was not replied.   Ex. C-2 is the proof of purchasing the motorcycle in question.    There is no rebuttal to the contrary.  The contention of the complainant is that the battery contains dead cells on account of manufacturing defect.   Though he has not led any expert evidence to substantiate any allegation but the facts and circumstances of the case speak for itself i.e. non replying of legal notice and option to become exparte gives rise to the inference that the battery in question has inherent defect.    Moreso,   as per the version of the complainant which is duly sworn by him and as per admission of the opposite party no.1 as well, the defective battery in question is lying with opposite party no.1 and it was for the opposite party no.1 either to have replaced the defective battery or to have repaired the same in order to redress the grievance of the complainant but it failed to do so which amounts to deficiency in service on its part. 

5)                         Resultantly, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party no.1 to replace the defective battery in question to the complainant within a month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The complainant is also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/- against opposite party no.1 within the above stipulated period of one month failing which the awarded amount shall fetch  penal interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till payment. 

Announced

 27.1.2015.                         

                                                                    President,

                                                          Distt. Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Rewari.

 

                    Member, 

             DCDRF,Rewari.