Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/703

Sukhbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Judge Battery Hosue - Opp.Party(s)

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

          CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janakpuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

 

  Date of institution: 27.10.2014  

Complaint Case No.703/14                                                                  Date of order:15.02.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Shri Sukhbir Singh, G-25, B LIG Flat, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.

                                                                                                          Complainant

VERSUS

M/s. Judge Battery House, VBAS-1, Varinder Nagar, Janakpuri Road, New Delhi-110058.                                                                         Opposite party No.1

 

M/s. Ess Kay International (Excide Service Centre), AE-9, Tagore Garden, New Delhi-110027.                                                                          Opposite party No.2

 

M/s. Exide Industrial Ltd., Excide House, 8/42,Near MDH Factory, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-110015.                                                                Opposite party No.3

 

ORDER

 

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

Briefly  facts of the present complaint are that Shri Sukhbir  Singh named above hereinafter referred as the complainant on 16.12.12 purchased one Prestulite PW-35L Battery from Judge Battery House hereinafter referred as the opposite party no.1 manufactured by Excide Industrial Ltd. here in the opposite party no.3 for sum of Rs.2,650/- vide Bill No.1411 dated 16.12.12 with warranty of 2 years. On 01.03.14 the battery started giving trouble in starting. He made complaint to opposite party no.1. They asked the complainant to go to M/s. Ess Kay International Excide Service Centre here in the opposite party no.2 for repairs. The complainant visited the opposite party no.2. They replaced the battery with a local made battery. The complainant objected. The opposite party no.2 told the complainant that they will replace the battery with local manufactured battery only. The complainant under compelling circumstances got installed a local made battery. The said battery also started giving trouble within 25 days. The complainant again visited the opposite party no.2. They replaced the earlier battery with another local made old battery. The same is also not working. His battery is within warranty. The complainant several times asked the opposite parties to replace the old battery with a new battery but to no effect. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite parties to refund cost of the battery and pay compensation for mental and physical agony.

 

Notices of the complaint were sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party no.3 filed short reply that the battery is not manufactured by them. The opposite parties were proceeded exparte vide order dated 05.01.16.

 

When the complainant was asked to lead exparte evidence, Shri Sukhbir Singh complainant in support of his complaint filed affidavit dated 27.07.16 narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant in support of his complaint also relied upon photo copy of bill no.1411 dated 16.12.12. From perusal of the bill, it reveals that the complainant on 16.12.12 purchased one Prestulite PW-35L Battery from the opposite party no.1 for sum of Rs.2,650/- with replacement warranty of 2 years.

 

We have heard the complainant and have gone through the material on record carefully and thoroughly.

 

The version of the complainant, his affidavit and bill no.1411 dated 16.12.12 have remained un-rebutted and unchallenged. Therefore, there is no reason to dis-believe the un-rebutted version and evidence of the complaint.

 

The complainant from the un-rebutted version and evidence has been able to prove that on 16.12.12 he purchased one Prestulite PW-35L Battery from the opposite party no.1 for sum of Rs.2,650/- with replacement warranty of 2 years. The battery became defective on 01.03.14 within warranty. He gave the battery to the opposite party no.2 for repairs. The opposite party no.2 replaced the battery twice with defective batteries. The opposite party no.3 has specifically stated that the battery is not manufactured by the opposite part no.3. The battery is sold by opposite party no.1. The burden is on the opposite  party no.1 to prove that the opposites party no.3 is manufacturer of the battery. But there is no evidence on behalf of the opposite party no.1 to prove that  opposite party no.3 is manufacturer of the battery. Therefore, there is unfair trade practice on part of the opposite party no.1. The complainant  has suffered loss of Rs.2,650/- cost of the battery on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of  the opposite party no.1. The complainant used the  battery for about one year and 3 months. The warranty was for 2 years. The complainant is entitled for depreciated cost of the battery. We direct the opposite party no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.1,500/- as depreciated cost of the battery with interest @9% from date of filing the complaint till actual realization of the amount and a sum of Rs.1,000/- as compensation for mental and physical agony suffered by him.

 

          Order pronounced on :          15.02.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

 

(PUNEET  LAMBA)                 (URMILA GUPTA)                               (R.S.  BAGRI)

       MEMBER                               MEMBER                                                PRESIDENT