Punjab

Sangrur

CC/11/2015

Harinder Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Goyal Tractor Parts - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Gagandeep Bhagria

15 Jun 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    11

                                                Instituted on:      06.01.2015

                                                Decided on:       15.06.2015

 

Harinder Kumar son of Shri Nainu Ram, resident of Mohalla Tarkhana Wala, Sunam, posted as D.P. Teacher, Himland Public School, Dirba, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     Goyal Tractor Parts Store, Mata Modi Road, Sunam through its owner/proprietor/partner Parmanand.

2.     M/s. Amra Raja Batteries Ltd. Regd. Office, Renigunta Cuddapah Road, Karakambadi-517520, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh (A.P.).

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Adv.

For OP No.1             :       Shri A.S.Dullat, Adv.

For OP No.2              :       Shri Bhupinder Singh, Adv.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Harinder Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a new battery make Amaron pro bike rider for his motorcycle bearing number ABR-PR-12APATX25/A1A19J0424216  on 11.03.2010 from OP number 1 for Rs.550/- with five years warranty, but no bill was issued to the complainant by OP number 1. It is further averred that after some days of its purchase, it started giving trouble. The complainant visited the shop of OP number 1 so many times to get the defect removed, but the OP number 1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other.  It is stated further that as per the warranty conditions, the complainant is entitled to get replaced the battery from the OPs. But, the Ops failed to do so despite serving of legal notice dated 19.12.2014. Thus,  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to remove the defect in the battery or get replaced the same with a new one and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by Op number 1, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not a consumer, that the complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is denied that the complainant ever purchased the battery in question from the OPs. It is further denied that the complainant ever visited the shop of OP number 1.  It is further denied that the OP number 1 ever misbehaved the complainant.  The other allegations in the complaint have been denied in toto.  OP number 1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, it is averred that the copy of the warranty card produced by the complainant shows that the battery in question was purchased by him on 11^th March, 2010 and the said warranty card is not duly filled and does not provide any details of the franchisee/retailer from where the complainant purchased the battery. However, it is admitted that the battery in question was purchased from OP number 1 which was having a warranty of 30 months, which has already been over on 10.09.2012. It is stated further that the battery has completed 57 months of life. It is stated that since the warranty of the battery has already expired, there is nothing payable by the Ops.  The other allegations in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 are postal receipts, Ex.C-5 warranty card and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP1/1 affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for the OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 affidavit and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties, evidence produced on the file and written submissions and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact of the OP number 2 that the complainant purchased the battery in question from OP number 1 on 11.03.2010.  Further the learned counsel for the OP number 2 has contended that the battery in question purchased by the complainant on 11.03.2010 was only having a warranty of 30 months from the date of its purchase, as such, it is contended that the OP number 2 is not at all liable for any of the defects in the battery in question.   On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that the OP number 1 at the time of purchase of the battery gave a warranty of five years.   Now, the question before us for determination is whether the battery Pro Bike Rider supplied by the OPs was having a warranty of 30 months of five years. 

 

7.             We have very carefully perused the whole case file and found that the complainant has produced on record the original warranty card, Ex.C-5, which clearly shows that the battery in question supplied to the complainant contains a warranty of sixty months.  Admittedly, when the complainant approached the OPs and even by giving legal notice dated 19.12.2014, the battery in question was within the warranty period, but the OPs failed to even check the battery in question or to replace it with a new one.   Further, to support the contention of the Ops, the Ops have not produced any warranty card showing that the battery in question was having only 30 months warranty.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the battery in question was having 60 months warranty and during which the same became defective. In the circumstances, we find it to be a case of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

8.             In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct OP number 2 either to repair the battery in question or to replace it with a new one of the same model. We further order OP number 2 to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1500/- in lieu of compensation for mental tension, agony and harassment. 

 

9.             This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A  copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                June 15, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member