BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:236 of 2015.
Date of Institution: 18.08.2015.
Date of Decision:28.06.2016
Mukesh Kumar son of Sh. Ram Chander, resident of V.P.O Dulheri, Tehsil Tosham, District Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus
- Jain Electronics Enterprises, Puranathana Chowk, Tosham, District Bhiwani.
- SU-KAM service centre, Near Police Line, Sundar Nagar, Hisar.
- Su-Kam Power Systems Limited, Plot No. 54, Udyog Vihar, Phase VI, Sector-37, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Complainant in person.
OP no. 1 exparte.
None for Ops no. 2 & 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he has purchased a Su-Kam battery on dated 23.06.2012 from OP no. 1 with three year guarantee for Rs. 11,500/-. It is alleged that after purchase its not working in January 2013, then I have complained registered in Su-Kam service centre and service centre replaced it. It is alleged that again in 2015 problem found in battery and I again complied in Su-Kam service centre and after it they resolve problem on dated 08.06.2015. Then again after ten days same problem happened but to no avail. The complainant further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and economic loss. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.
2. OP no. 1 has failed to come present. Hence he was proceeded against exparte.
3. On appearance, the Ops no. 2 & 3 filed written statement alleging therein that this battery has been rejected at the time of the testing. It is submitted that fourth cell found damaged inside the battery and net protection of cell also damaged and found over the electrolyte. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 2 & 3 and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record affidavit Mark A and documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-5.
5. We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the complainant in person.
6. Complainant in person reiterated the contents of the complaint. He submitted that he had purchased the battery in question from OP no. 1 vide bill dated 23.06.2012. He submitted that as the battery was got defective then the same was got replaced by the Ops in January 2013. The replaced battery worked properly but got defective and he deposited the same with OP no. 2 vide goods receipt note dated 19.06.2015. The complainant submitted that the battery was carrying three years guarantee.
7. In the light of the pleadings and arguments of the complainant, we have examined the material on record. The complainant has contended that the battery was carrying the guarantee for 3 years but has not produced the guarantee card of the battery to show the terms and conditions of the guarantee. The battery in question was purchased by the complainant on 23.06.2012 and as per his contention the battery was delivered by him to the OP no. 2 on 19.06.2015 just at the fag end of 3 years period. The complainant has not brought any cogent evidence on the file that the battery in question was having any manufacturing defect. The complaint of the complainant does not found any support material on the record. The complaint of the complainant is dismissed being devoid of merit 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: 28.06.2015.
(Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi)
Member
