Presented by Sri G.S. Pradhan, President . <br /> The present complaint pertains to deficiency in service as envisaged under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and its brief fact is as follows:-<br /> <br /> The Complainant has purchased a TATA ACE HT Vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-17-F-0804 from the Opposite Party the authorized dealer of Tata Motors on Dt.23/04/2008 and plied the same by himself for earning his livelihood. The Opposite Party has issued the sale letter, warranty card of the vehicle infavour of the Complainant. During the warranty period the vehicle gives some problem for which the Complainant made complain before the Opposite Party regarding the problem. As per the instruction, the Complainant delivered the vehicle to the Opposite Party where upon the Opposite Party sent the vehicle to M/s Hi-TECH ENTERPRISES, Administrative and sales office, Sambalpur for proper check up and to furnish the report regarding the problems if any found on the vehicle. After thoroughly check up the vehicle, he reported that the defect occurred due to “the battery was not holding charges” and sent the vehicle to the Opposite Party. There after the Opposite Party sent the battery to the authorized agent but after due check up the authorized agent furnish his report through a letter stating there in that the battery is not within the warranty period. On Dt.30/03/2009, the Opposite Parties issued a letter stating that the battery was examined by the O.E. dealer and opined that the battery was rejected due to manufacturing laps and request the Complainant to receive Rs.800/-(Rupees eight hundred)only from the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> The Complainant contends that the said battery has got manufacturing defect and the defect occurred in the battery within the warranty period, the Opposite Party is duty bound to give proper service to the Complainant. But the Opposite Party did not remove the defects of the battery and remain silent over the matter in spite of receipt of the pleader notice Dt.18/04/2009 issued by the Complainant. Hence this case.<br /> <br /> The Complainant claims a new battery worth of Rs.4,500/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred)only, Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only compensation towards mental agony, Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand)only towards loss besides cost of the case from the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> In its version the Opposite Party admit that he is the authorized agent of Tata Motors limited and deals with sale and purchase of four wheeler manufactured by Tata Motors and the Complainant has purchased a four wheeler vehicle (TATA ACE HT) on Dt.23/04/2008 from the Opposite Party which was delivered in good running condition along with the relevant documents with warranty card of the vehicle. As per the warranty issued by the TATA Motors, it is mentioned that on some parts of the vehicle is i.e. tyres, batteries, rubber parts, electrical equipments and fuel injections pump the warranty shall not apply as because the company is not manufacturer of those part and it is supplied by other company but buyers of the vehicle shall be entitled to, against such company under their warranty in respect of such parts. On received the complaint on Dt.22/03/2009 from the Complainant about the starting problem of the vehicle, immediately the Opposite Party attended the complaint and after thorough check up by the company mechanic observed that there is some problem in the battery. On the next day the Opposite Party sent the battery to M/s Hi-Tech Enterprises, Administrative and Sale Office, Sambalpur, the authorized agent of Amaron Battery, on Dt.23/03/2009 said M/s Hi-Tech Enterprises returned the battery to the Opposite Party stating that the warranty period of battery expired on February-2009 as it was manufactured on November-2007. But to keep the cordial relation with the Complainant the Opposite Party issued a letter to the Complainant on Dt.30/03/2009 to compensate a sum of Rs.800/-(Rupees eight hundred)only on behalf of the company but the Complainant refused to receive. The Opposite Party discharge his duty sincerely in order to provide proper service to the Complainant and hence there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.<br /> <br /> The Opposite Party prays for dismissal of the case with cost.<br /> <br /> Perused the complaint, the version of the Opposite Parties along with the copies of documents filed and find as follows:-<br /> <br /> Admittedly, the vehicle where in the battery in question was fitted was purchased on Dt.23/04/2008 by the Complainant from the Opposite Party. The vehicle gave problem and it was taken to the Opposite Party for removal of the same on Dt.22/03/2009 i.e. with in one year of the purchase of the vehicle. The defect as ascertained after investigation by Telco Dealer was due to “Battery not holding charge”. The Opposite Party offered Rs.800/-(Rupees eight hundred)only towards the cost of the battery with the plea that its warranty has expired as it was manufactured in November-2007 and warranty period covered up to February-2009.<br /> <br /> Here, the crux of the matter is that the Complainant has purchased the vehicle on Dt.23/04/2008, the battery forming an inseparable part of the vehicle in the absence of which the vehicle would not run. Naturally the period of warranty of all the part fitted in the vehicle would commence from the date of purchase of the vehicle and not separately for its different part fixed by their respective manufacturer. The battery has given trouble with in one year of the purchase of the vehicle and the defect admittedly, due to “manufacturing laps”. The Opposite Party who has sold the vehicle to the Complainant has the responsibility to see that all the fittings in the vehicle are of proper standard and functioning properly. In view of the fact that, the battery has given trouble with in one year of the purchase, the Opposite Party is liable to pay the cost of a new battery to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result, the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.4,500/-(Rupees four thousand five hundred)only towards the cost of a new battery and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only compensation towards mental agony and litigation expenses to the Complainant with in thirty days hence, failing which 18%(eighteen percent) interest per annum shall be charged till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> Complaint allowed accordingly.<br />