BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 146 of 2011
Date of Institution : 8.6.2011
Date of Decision : 1.6.2016
Kashmir Singh son of Sh.Ujjagar Singh, r/o village Narelkhera, tehsil and distt.Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
- Hissaria Sales Corporation, S.C.O. No.29 Bishnoi Market Hisar Road, Sirsa (Authorized dealer of Sukam Invertor and aCE Batteries) through its partner/proprietor.
- Aggarwal Enterprises, behind shop no.26, Anaj Mandi, Fatehabad (E-mail: nitin fateh 26@ yahoo.com) through its prop/partner/authorized signatory/Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SH.RAJIV MEHTA………… ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.S.K.Puri, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite parties no.1 and 3 exparte.
Sh.Amit Goyal, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased two batteries having Trade Mark ACE bearing no. KVL-0831124650642 and KVL-0831124650631 for Rs.21600/- vide bill no.1901 dt. 12.1.2009 with guarantee of thirty months against any kind of defect. In the month of May, 2011, the batteries stopped working and the inverter became out of order. Accordingly, complaint was lodged on 11.5.2011 with the opposite party no.1, who told the complainant to bring the batteries at his shop and the complainant handed over the said batteries to Op no.1. Op no.1 got checked the said batteries from op no.2 and made a challan for replacement bearing no.5032 dt. 11.5.2011, which bears the signature of authorized signatory showing an amount of Rs.14400/-. Thereafter, the batteries were returned to the complainant by Op no.1 with the assurance that internal active body of batteries has been replaced with new one, but within a week same problem again occurred. The complainant again approached to Ops, but they refused to replace the battery. Hence, the present complaint.
2. Opposite parties no.1 and 2 contested the case by filing separate replies. It is pleaded by op no.1 that the manufacturing company provides 30 months warranty on these type of model of batteries. The complainant after using the batteries for more than twenty seven months, approached the Ops with complaint of less back up in batteries and those batteries were sent to service centre of the company at Fatehabad i.e. to Op no.2 for its further checking. Op no.2 sent back the said batteries to Op no.1 vide challan no.0532 dt. 11.5.2011 with the testing report dt. 10.5.2011 showing “back up O.K.” and the batteries were handed over to the complainant and after that the complainant never approached to Ops. Remaining averments have been denied.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply pleaded that it is the dealer of op no.3 and it sold the batteries to op no.1 being dealer of op no.3 and op no.1 sold the same to the complainant. The batteries on receipt were sent by it to the branch office of op no.3 at Hisar for check up and the same were returned to him vide challan no.0109 dt. 10.5.2011 with O.K. report. It is denied that defective batteries were supplied to the complainant.
4. As none appeared on behalf of opposite party no.3, therefore, it was proceeded against exparte vide order dt. 21.3.2013. Thereafter, opposite party no.1 was also proceeded exparte vide order dt. 10.2.2015 due to non-appearance.
5. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record Ex.C1-his own supporting affidavit; Ex.C2-challan for replacement and ; Ex.C3-cash memo, whereas opposite parties have tendered in evidence Ex.R1-affidavit of Ghanshyam Dass, prop. of op no.2 and Ex.R2-callan-cum-transfer invoice.
6. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased two batteries from op no.1 on 12.1.2009 for total Rs.21600/-. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant lodged the complaint on 11.5.2011 to op no.1, who sent the same to Op no.2 for checking and Op no.2 sent the same to the Branch Office at Hisar of Op no.3, who returned the same to op no.2 vide challan no.0109 dt. 10.5.2011 with O.k. report and thereafter, Op no.2 sent these batteries to op no.1 with O.K. report and op no.1 returned the same to the complainant. By way of present complaint, the complainant wants to replace the battery in question as allegedly there was manufacturing defect in the batteries. From the perusal of documents, it is clear that the batteries were purchased on 12.1.2009 with warranty of thirty months and the complaint regarding back up problem in the batteries was lodged on 11.5.2011 i.e. after about 28 months of the purchase when the warranty period of the batteries was to be lapsed. In our view, the back up of almost all the batteries becomes slow within such a long period. Moreover, the opposite parties have placed on record Ex.R2 wherein the back up of the batteries has been shown O.K. by the service centre of Op no.3. The complainant has not placed on record any mechanic report to prove that there was any manufacturing problem in the batteries in question. If, there was any problem in the batteries after its checking from the opposite parties, it was must for the complainant to get examined the same from any other expert/mechanic, but the complainant has failed to do so.
8. Resultantly, the present complaint stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:1.6.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
