Orissa

Rayagada

CC/47/2019

Sri Bansidhar Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

K.K. Bike Servicing Garage - Opp.Party(s)

Self

24 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No.  47 /  2019.                                            Date.     24    .     9  . 2019

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                      President.

Sri  Gadadhara  Sahu,                                           Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Bansidhar Mishra, Old Revenue colony,  Near Sub-Collector office,  Po/Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha).      Cell No.9938493455,  9437714047.                                                                                                   …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The  Owner, K.K.Bike Servicing Garrage, Aurobinda Nagar, Rayagada.

2.The General Manager, Exide Industries Ltd., Exide House- 595, Chowringhee, Calcutta-700 020.                          … Opposite parties.

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Self.

For the O.P No.1   :- Exparte,

For the  O .P No.2:- Sri J.K.Mohapatra, Advocate, Rayagada.

.

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non replacement of  Exide Battery within warranty period by the O.P. No.2  inter alia  non replacement of wiring system of two wheeler bearing Regd. No. OR-18 B-2747  by the O.P. No.1   for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

                                        P..cond...2…

                                        //   2  //

Upon  Notice, the  O.P. No.1 neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  03 adjournments has been given  to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 4 months   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing  from  the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.P No.1  is against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  under section  13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.P No.1 . set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

 

On being noticed the O.P. No.2  appeared through their learned counsel  Sri J.K.Mohapatra  and defend the  case.  Though the O.P No.2  has not filed written version but  after receipt of the notice from this forum   the O.P No.2 has supplied  a new battery in exchange of old battery  on Dt. 3.7.2019   free  of cost. To substantiate the same the O.P No.2 has  filed  satisfaction letter of the complainant  where in the complainant had signed  on Dt. 8.7.2019   and also satisfied with the  service given by the O.P No.2.  Hence  the O.P No.2   prays the forum to close the case accordingly  against the O.P. No.2 for the best  interest of justice.

 

Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the    O.P No.2     and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, filed by the parties. 

                                                                        //   3   //

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

Undisputedly the complainant had purchased a dry battery model No. FBVO-12BVL-B Sl. No. M6F8W487513  6F84 purchased   from the O.P. No.1 on Dt.16.9.2018 on  payment  of consideration for  the purpose to use in the two wheeler (copies of the warranty card is in the file which is marked as  Annexure-I).

The main grievance of the complainant was that after some months the battery was not functioning and the wire system of the two wheeler  damaged by the O.P. No.1 garrage  worker  intentionally. Hence the  complainant filed the C.C. case before the forum  direct the O.P. No.2 to replace a new battery  and direct the O.P. No.1 to replace a new wiring of TVS company  since the workers of the O.P. No.1 had damaged  the entire wiring system of the two wheeler.

After  receipt of the notice from the forum  the O.P No.2  has supplied  a new battery in exchange of old battery  on Dt. 8.7.2019   free  of cost. In this connection,   the complainant has  filed  satisfaction letter where in the complainant had signed  on Dt. 8.7.2019   and also satisfied with the  service given by the O.P No.2 and prays the forum to withdrawn the case against the O.P. No.2(Exide battery). 

The complainant in their  petition Dt. 8.7.2019 has  clearly  mentioned that  the O.P.No.1  has not yet replaced the wiring system  of the two wheeler till date.  The complainant prays the forum to order the O.P. No.1 to replace the wiring system  which was destroyed by the workers of the O.P. No.1 free of cost inter alia with penalty.

On perusal of the record we observed that  the complainant made several complaints with the O.P No.1  pointing out the defects  which goes on to show that  right from  the very

                                                                        //  4  //

beginning  the above set was not performing  well and continued  repeatedly to develop defects  resulting  in  non-performance which was intimated by the complainant.   Further we observed that  on repeated complaints made  by the complainant to the O.P No.1 neither the defects have been removed nor replaced  with a new wiring  set to the two wheeler.  We  hold   at this stage if the above set required frequent servicing then it can be presumed that it has a manufacturing defect. If a defective set  is supplied a consumer he  is entitled to get refund of the price of the  set or to replaced  with a new wiring  set and also the consumer concerned is entitled  and has a right to claim compensation and cost to meet the mental agony. In the instant case as it appears that the  above wiring   set of the two wheeler  of the complainant  had  destroyed  by the workers of the complainant No.1   and the O.P No.1  was unable to restore its normal functioning.

             It appears that the complainant invested a substantial amount and purchased the above  set with an expectation to have the effective benefit of use of the above set. In this case the complainant was deprived of getting beneficial use   of the set and deprived of using the above set for such a long time and the defects were not removed by the O.Ps who could know the defects from time to time from the complainant. In the instant case the O.P  No.1 is   liable.

On appreciation of the evidences adduce before it, the forum is inclined to allow the complaint against the OP  No.1. Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                             O R D E R

In  resultant the complaint petition  stands  allowed  on exparte against the O.P No.1 (K.K.Bike Servicing Garrage)   and  dismissed  against  the O.P. No.2  ( Exide battery).

The  O.P. No.1 ( K.K.Bike Servicing Garrage)  is ordered  to replace the wiring system of two wheeler of the complainant   free of cost.  The O.Ps   are  further ordered to pay Rs.500/- towards  mental  agony.

The O.P No.1  ( K.K.Bike Servicing Garrage)     is  ordered to comply the above directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order .

Serve  the copies of the order to the parties as per rule free of cost.

Dictated and  corrected by me. Pronounced in the open forum on 24 ^th. day of September,2019 .MEMBER                                                                    MEMBER                                                 PRESIDENT