DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.

                                   ……………….

Presents:-

1. Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
2. Smt. S.Rath, Member.

                 Dated, Bolangir the 28^th day of November 2017.

                 C.C.No. 31 of 2014.

Ramakanta Biswal, age- 36 years son of Sikandar Biswal, Resident of

village- Panesara PO and P.S- Loisingha, Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                             ..                       ..            ..   Complainant.

                        -Versus-

1.LIBERTY ENERGY. At- Hotel Triveni Complex,

   Bolangir Town, P.O/.P.S/Dist- Bolangir.

2.EXIDE Ganesh Agency, At- N.H.6, Gopal Pali, P.O.Remed.

   Dist- Sambalpur.

                                                                            ..                        ..           ..    Opp.Parties.

Adv. for the complainant- None.

Adv. for the O.P.No.1    - Sri O.P.Hota.

Adv. for the O.P.No.2    - None.

                                                                       Date of filing of the case- 08.05.2014.

                                                                       Date of order                   - 28.11.2017

JUDGMENT.

Sri A.K.Purohit, President.

                  After receipt of the final order passed in Revision Petition No.78 of 2014 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, both parties were noticed to appear before this Forum on the date fixed and accordingly the complainant and O.P.1 appeared and O..No.2 neither appeared nor proceeded with the hearing of the case and he was set exparte vide order dated 7.11.2017.since the case is ready for hearing the same is heard and disposed off.

2.               The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a MHD 88-0 battery for a consideration of Rs 6,356/- from the O.P.No.1 on dt.06.11.2013. After use of the battery during warranty period, the complainant found various defects in charging of the battery, to which he had approached the O.Ps for service, but since no service was provided by the O.Ps he preferred this complaint.

3.               Although notice has been served on O.P.No.2 neither he appeared nor proceeded with the hearing of the case and hence he was set exparte vide order dt.07.11.2017. O.P.No.1 contested the case by filing his written version. The O.P.No.1 denied the complainant’s allegations and submitted that, after receipt of the complaint, he had contacted with the service center and taken care to pro vide proper service to the complainant. Since the warranty is provided by the manufacturer the O.P.1 has no role to provide any other service. The further submission of the O.P.1 is that, since the defect in the battery is due to extraneous reasons it did not cover with the warranty and hence the case is liable to be dismissed.

4.              Heard both the parties. Perused the documentary evidence available on record, Perused the retail invoice No.1549 dt.06.11.2013 issued by the O.P.No.1. It is a fact that, the complainant had purchased MHD 880 battery from O.P.No.1 and paid Rs 5000/- towards price of the battery. It is seen from the warranty claim form that the battery is a warranted product and during warranty period the same was found defective. Therefore it is the bound down duty of the O.Ps to remove the defect in the battery. But the O.Ps simply relying on the report of the service engineer, come to a conclusion that, the defect is due to extraneous reasons which is not covered under the warranty. Perused the report of the service engineer. The cause of defect as shown in the report is (a) failure in topping up with pure distilled water (b) Topped with  sulfuric ACF (c) charging system is overcharging the battery and (d) high gravity acid used. All these reasons are relating to maintenance of the battery and it is the duty of the O.Ps to provide better maintenance during warranty period. But there is no evidence available on record to show that the O.Ps have provided service for proper maintenance of the battery. Therefore those causes cannot be said to be extraneous reasons and it relates to service of the battery. The O.Ps have also not produced any affidavit evidence of the service engineer to explain the extraneous reasons.

5.               The learned advocate for the O.P.1 submitted that, the warranty is provided by the manufacturer and the O.P.1 is not liable for any deficiency. It is true that the warranty is provided by the manufacturer but the complainant has no direct touch with the manufacturer and the manufacturer is dealing with his business through his authorized agent. The O.P.2 is the authorized agent to provide service on behalf of the manufacturer. The OP.No.1 after receipt of the complaint, he had provided service by sending the same to the authorized service center, but the service center has failed to remove the defect from the battery. Therefore, the dealer O..No.1 is not liable for replacement of the battery.

6.               Under the aforesaid discussion and materials available on record, it is concluded that the O.P.2 has not able to remove the defect of the battery during warranty period. Non removal of defect during warranty period amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.2. Hence ordered.

                                       ORDER.

                   The O.P.No.2 is directed to replace with a new defect free battery of the same model and same price with extended warranty to the complainant after receipt of the defective battery from the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The O.P.2 is further directed to pay Rs 1,000/- to the complainant towards cost within the aforesaid period.

                   Accordingly the case is disposed off.

Order pronounced in open forum this the 28^th day of November 2011.

                          (S.Rath)                                  (A.K.Purohit)

                           MEMBER.                              PRESIDENT.