BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

                                                                   Complaint No.:68 of 2016.

                                                                   Date of Institution: 11.04.2016.

                                                                   Date of Decision:28.12.2016

Ram Kishan son of Parbhu Ram, resident of village Kharak Kalan, Tehsil & Ditrict Bhiwani.

                                                                                   ..….Complainant.

                                      Versus

India  Electricals Naya Bazar, Bhiwani through its Proprietor.

                                                                   …...Opposite Party. 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT

BEFORE: -  Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

        Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

Present:-    Sh. Pardeep Vashisth, Advocate for complainant.

       Sh. Lokesh, Proprietor of  OP.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                   The case of the complainant in brief, is that he had purchased the battery  SUKAM 165 A.H  from the OP vide bill no. 295 dated 18.06.2014 for a sum of Rs. 9500/- with a warranty of one year 6 months. It is alleged that in the month of December 2015 the battery became defective and the OP is liable to replace the battery. It is alleged that he went to the OP for repair the same but to no avail.   The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondent, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and economic loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.

2.                On appearance, the OP filed written statement alleging therein that the battery in question was sent by the OP to the service centre of the manufacturing company.  It is submitted that the company after checking the battery found no defect in the battery.    He further submitted that the complainant intentionally did not take the battery with a view to take a new battery.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party  and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 alongwith supporting affidavit. 

4.                Sh. Lokesh, Proprietor of OP stated that he does not want to file any document in his evidence.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard both the parties.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that the battery in question was purchased by the complainant from the OP for a sum of Rs. 9500/- vide bill dated 18.06.2014 Annexure C-1 with a warranty of one year and 6 months.  In the month of December 2015 the battery became defective.  The OP is liable to replace the battery.

7.                The OP in person reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the battery in question was sent by the OP to the service centre of the manufacturing company.  The company after checking the battery found no defect in the battery.  The Field Service Centre Report No. 324164 dated 22.12.2015 issued by the service centre of the company is on the file.  He further submitted that the complainant intentionally did not take the battery with a view to take a new battery.

8.                In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on the record.  The complainant in his evidence has produced the bill Annexure C-1 and Field Service Report No. 151868 dated 05.09.2015 as Annexure C-2 and the copy of user manual/warranty card as Annexure C-3.  As per the contention of the complainant he purchased the battery in question on 18.06.2014 carrying a warranty of one year and 6 months.  It means the warranty of the battery was upto 17.06.2015 and the complainant taken his battery to the OP on 13.06.2015 just 4 days before the expiry of the warranty.  As per own pleadings of the complainant the battery in question worked properly about one year and 6 months.  Hence it cannot be said that the battery in question was having any manufacturing defect.  In the absence of any cogent evidence on behalf of the complainant in support of his contention, the complainant cannot succeed.  The complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order as to costs.   Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated: 28.12.2016.                   

      (Rajesh Jindal)                            

President,

                                                          District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

            (Anamika Gupta)                                        

                 Member