MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

14.03.2024

1.         A complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act filed. In brief the facts are that complainant purchases e-rickshaw for livelihood vide vehicle no. DL1ER1002. It is further stated by the complainant that he had a valid driving license and PSV Badge no. P111600076 to drive the vehicle in question.

2.         It is further alleged by the complainant that OP -1 was having the agency of OP-2 who is the manufacturer of batteries. As such on 26.04.2014, complainant visited OP-1 for purchasing new batteries. The officials of OP-1 suggested the complainant to purchase the battery of Eastman Chetak by introducing some new advance feature in the same. Believing on the suggestion of official of OP-1 complainant purchases 4 Eastman chetak batteries vide battery no. RB08588884, RB085590230, RB08589556 and RB08588929 for a sum of Rs. 24,075/- vide invoice no. 0019 dated  26.04.2016 with one year warranty, starting from the date 15.04.2016.

3.         It is further alleged by the complainant that the aforesaid batteries started discharging within 30 minutes of its uses.  It is further alleged by the complainant that on 11.07.2016 the officials of OP-1 replaced the batteries after complaint. It is further alleged by the complainant that within 7 days of the replacement again the batteries started creating problem and as such complainant again approached OP-1 & 2 for replacing the same as all the four batteries are squarely covered under the warranty provided by OP-2. It is further alleged by the complainant that despite his repeated requests and follow up nothing has been done  by OP-1 & 2 for redressing his grievance. Being aggrieved by the conduct of OP complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance.

4          Notice of the complaint was sent to both the OPs.OP-1 filed its written statement thereby denying any deficiency in service on its part. It is further stated that if any liability occurred to pay the compensation OP-2 i.e. the manufacturer is liable as the warranty card was issued by OP-2. It is further prayed that present complaint case be dismissed qua OP-1.

5.         Complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit. Despite opportunity OP-1 failed to file his evidence and also failed to appear before this commission as such proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.12.2018 of Ld. Predecessor Bench.

6.         Complainant filed his written arguments. We have heard arguments advance at the bar by complainant and have perused the record.

7.         The complainant has placed on record the copy of the warranty card issued by OP-1 in respect to the batteries in question. The complainant has averred in his complaint that initially the batteries started creating problem immediately after the purchase and as such OP-1 replaced the same. It is further alleged that within 7 days of the replacement the batteries again started creating problem and is non functioning, as such complainant approached OPs for replacement of batteries or for refund of the cost but despite repeated requests no steps were taken by OPs to redress the grievance. Besides the copy of the invoice as well as the warranty card no other documents has been placed on record by the complainant to establish the allegation of non functioning of the batteries in question. Due to lack of documentary evidence we are of the considered opinion that complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in service against OPs. We therefore find no merit in complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

File be consigned to record room.

8.       Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.

Announced in open Commission on   14.03.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR CHANDNA                       RAJESH

                PRESIDENT                                   MEMBER                         MEMBER