By: Miss. R.K.Madanavally, Member
Facts in brief:-
The complainant had entrusted one battery with opposite party for repairing the same on 24.12.12. Though the complainant enquired about the battery for several time, it was not repaired. There after on 17.1.13, one of the staff under opposite party came to the complainant's house and connected the repaired battery. But, on the very same day it was found that the battery was not working in the absence of electricity.
The non functioning of the battery was informed to the opposite party and the battery was taken to the opposite party's shop in a vehicle by both the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant alleges that, up to this date the battery was not repaired. The complainant has already paid Rs. 1900/- for repairing the said battery.
The opposite party appeared and filed detailed version where in it was submitted that the battery was very old one and the same was not purchased from opposite party's shop. As there was no repairing facility in their shop, they sent it to Cherppulasseri for the repair. The delay caused for the repair was that the battery plates were sent from Bangalore through parcel. The cells of the battery were so weak and at last it was repaired and the total amount of the repair work was Rs. 4000/-. These matter was informed to the complainant and the complainant had paid only Rs.1900/- and he was not ready to pay the entire amount and was also not ready to take back the battery which was repaired by the opposite party.
The main issues are to be answered in question are,
i) Whether the opposite party is deficient in service?
If so relief and cost.
Point No. 1 and 2
The oral evidence adduced by the complainant reveals the fact that the battery was an old one and it was a local battery, not a branded one. The specific case of the opposite party is that, the battery is repaired and the total repair charge is Rs.4000/- in which 1900/- was paid by the complainant. According to opposite party if the complainant is paying Rs. 1300/-, he can taken back the repaired battery form opposite party's shop. But this facts were known by the complainant only after the filing of the complaint.
Apart from the oral evidences, documentary evidences were also adduced by the complaint. Ext. A1 and A2 were marked. Ext. A2 is the bill of Rs.1900/- issued by opposite party infavour of the complainant. Ext. A2 was admitted by opposite party also.
It is true that the repaired battery was kept under the custody of opposite party by last one and half years. The said battery was not purchased from the opposite party's shop and was having no warranty. It is admittedly true that there was some delay for repairing the battery. But opposite party had given satisfactory answer for the delay, that the battery was sent to cherpulassseri and the plates of the battery were procuring from Bangalore etc. Any way it was repaired and kept in the custody of opposite party. Opposite party is ready to return back the battery, if the complainant is paying Rs. 1300/-. Facts being so, there is no need for a long discussion.
Hence the complaint is allowed in part and we order that the complainant shall pay an amount of Rs. 1300/- to opposite party and opposite party shall return back the “repaired battery” to the complainant forth with. No order as to cost and compensation.
Dated this 18th day of August , 2014
Sd/-
K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
Sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1
PW1 : Complainant, O.P.Musthafa
Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1to A2
Ext.A1 : Battery Charging Bill issued by battery House, Perinthalmanna, dated 24/12/12
Ext.A2 : Bill issued by opposite party in favour of complainant dated 17/01/2013
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party : Nil
Sd/-
K.MOHAMMED ALI , PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R.K.MADANAVALLY , MEMBER
Sd/-
MINI MATHEW, MEMBER
