BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Complaint Case no.198 of 2016
Date of Institution: 16.8.2016
Date of Decision: 8.11.2017
Babu Ram Sharma son of Bharudeen, resident of M.C. Colony, Sirsa, District Sirsa through legal representative Balram (substituted as per order of the Forum).
………Complainant.
Versus
1. Harsh Electronics, Near Railway Crossing, Beneath the ROB, Hisar Road, Sirsa, District Sirsa, through its Proprietor.
2. Su-Kam Powers Systems Ltd., Regd. Office: 306, Kirti Deep Building Nangal Raya, New Delhi, through its Manager.
……… Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Before: SH. R.L.AHUJA ………………. PRESIDENT
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT………………… MEMBER
SH. MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. P.K. Bansal, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite parties exparte.
ORDER
Initially the present complaint was filed by Babu Ram Sharma son of Bharudeen and after his death on an application, Balram son of Babu Ram Sharma has been substituted as complainant vide order dated 9.2.2017.
2. In brief, case of complainant is that on 30.12.2014, the complainant purchased one Su-Kam battery bearing Type SBT 150AHCN, Sr. No. 00301A51872010143830 from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.11,600/- vide cash memo No.3451 dated 30.12.2014 with warranty for 36 months. The battery is manufactured by op no.2. It is further averred that the above said battery was purchased by the complainant for the Su-Kam inverter. However, the said battery did not work properly as the same was not charging properly and also used to throw the acid for the last three-four months. The complainant reported the above defect to op no.1 whereupon op no.1 told that the mechanic of the company will visit the premises or the complainant and will check the battery. The company mechanic visited the premises of the complainant and checked the above battery but he did not do anything in the matter. It is further averred that again the complainant visited the op no.1 and told him that said battery is not working properly and asked to replace the same with a new one being within warranty period, but op no.1 refused to do anything. Now the above said battery is lying at the premises of the complainant in defective condition. That due to throwing of acid by the battery, the complainant is facing continuous danger to his life as well as life of his family members and also other hazards to his building. It is further averred that it seems that there is manufacturing defect in the battery and same cannot be repaired. The complainant approached and requested the ops to redress his grievance but to no effect. The complainant also got served a legal notice upon the ops on 22.6.2016 but of no use. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties and therefore the opposite parties were proceeded against exparte.
3. The complainant Balram produced his affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of death certificate of Babu Lal Ex.C3, copy of battery details Ex.C4, copy of warranty card Ex.C5, copies of postal receipts Ex.C6, Ex.C7 and copy of legal notice Ex.C8.
4. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and have perused the case file carefully.
5. The perusal of the record reveals that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.C1 wherein he has reiterated all the averments of the complaint. In support of his case, he has also placed on file copy of bill Ex.C2, copy of death certificate of Babu Lal Ex.C3, copy of battery details Ex.C4, copy of warranty card Ex.C5, copies of postal receipts Ex.C6, Ex.C7 and copy of legal notice Ex.C8. The perusal of the bill Ex.C2 reveals that Babu Ram purchased the battery in question from opposite party no.1 for a sum of Rs.11,600/- on 30.12.2014 and from the perusal of copy of warranty card Ex.C5, it is evident that there was warranty of 36 months of the battery in question. It appears from the record that the opposite parties have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant despite the fact that battery in question was well within warranty period and also despite serving of legal notice upon the ops. Since the opposite parties did not come forward to contest the complaint and were proceeded against exparte, as such evidence led by the complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. Therefore, the complainant has been able to prove his case.
6. In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to carry out necessary repair in the battery in question of the complainant and to make it defect free without any cost within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. In case it is found by the ops, that battery is not repairable, they shall be liable to replace the same with a new one of same make and model within further period of 15 days without any cost and in case battery of the same make and model is not available, the ops shall be liable to make refund of the cost of the battery in question i.e. Rs.11,600/- to the complainant within further period of 15 days, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. We also direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Both the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with the order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated:8.11.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
