Date of filing:- 03/08/2015
Date of Order:- 26/04/2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 46 of 2015.
Saroj Kumar Panigrahi, S/o late Krishna Chandra Panigrahi, aged about 51(fifty one) R/o. Sohela, Dist. Bargarh, at present residing at Khajurtikra, Ward No.8(eight)P.o/Ps/ Dist- Bargarh. ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
M.D and C.E.O., Exide House 59 E Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700020.
Balaji batteries (Dealer/authorised person Exide batteries), Railway Station Road, Bargarh, Po/Ps and Dist. Bargarh.
.... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri C.D.Jal, Advocate with other Advocates
For the Opposite Parties :- Ex-parte.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.26/04/2017. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Ajanta Subhadarsinee, Member (W)
The Complainant has filed this case U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the Opposite Parties, alleging deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice.
The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant namely Saroj Kumar Panigrahi, S/o late Krushna Chandra Panigrahi, aged about 51(fifty one) years, R/o Luhurachati, P/o. Pandkipali, Ps. Sohela, Dist. Bargarh. At present residing at Khajuritikra, Ward No.8(eight), Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh files this complaint case U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986 against the Opposite Parties i.e. (1) M.D. and C.E.O, Exide House, 59 E, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata 700020 and (2) Balaji Batteries (Dealer/authorised person) Exide Batteries, Railway Station Road, Bargarh alleging deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice.
In brief the case of the Complainant is that on Dt.14/07/2012, he purchased a INVA TUBULAR (The Ultimate Inverter Battery) IT 500 Battery (EXIDE) bearing batch No. 1RD, 084080 for Rs.13,000/-(Rupees thirteen thousand)only from the authorised dealer, Bajaj Batteries, Bargarh, i.e. the Opposite Party No.2(two) for his domestic use with terms and condition as stipulated in the warranty card issued in favour of him at the time of purchase. According to the Complainant the said Battery was unable to give power back up on Dt.20/05/2015 for which he made a complaint to the customer care through his mobile phone, bearing No. 9583995638 on Dt. 22/05/2015, the same was registered bearing complaint No. E0RH0150517977. Then one service personal namely Sanjay of Opposite Party No.1(one) attended the Complainant to check and repair the Battery on Dt. 28/05/2015. After repairing the same the service personal intimated the Complainant that the Battery was repaired and functioning now, if any problem will arise in the Battery in future, it would be replaced. But after two days of repairing, the same problem arose in the Battery again i.e. on Dt. 30/05/2015. The Complainant again contacted the service personal of Opposite Party No.1(one) but they avoided to attend the problem on some pretexts. Further he was advised by the company personal to lodge a fresh complaint as earlier complaint was closed. Accordingly the Complainant made a fresh complaint on Dt.20/06/2015 bearing complaint No.E0RH0150617999. On lodging the complaint the customer care reffered him to contact the higher authorities of the company bearing contact No. 98362654356, 7682849022, 9437301455. Then the Complainant intimated the higher authorities regarding the problems of the Battery over phone but instead of attending the complaint for repair or replacement of the Battery they advised to contact other service personal of the company. After repeated persuasion by the Complainant one Mr. Paresh attended him and told that it is the duty of the previous service personal namely Mr. Sanjay who attended the Complainant earlier. Again the service personal namely Paresh harassed, rebuked and misbehaved the Complainant. Finally the complaint of the Complainant was closed without any repair or replacement of the Battery. Further the Complainant was informed that the Battery was rejected and advised to contact one Mr. Bhagaban in mobile No. 9437301455, who can replace the Battery. Even though the Complainant tried his best could not be contacted with that person. As such the Battery was neither replaced nor repaired, even though the defect of the Battery is within the warranty period i.e. 48(forty eight) months from the date of purchase. The Battery was purchased on Dt.14/07/2012 from Opposite Party No.2(two) and defect occurred on Dt.20/05/2015. So the complaint is within the warranty period.
This act of the Opposite Parties amount to deficiency in service. The Opposite Parties are also violating the terms and conditions of the warranty, issued by the company. On the other hand, the Complainant suffered a loss, mental agony and physical harassment without getting any benefit or utility by the illegal act of the Opposite Parties. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties the Complainant prayed for directions to Opposite Parties to replace the defective Battery with a new INVA TUBULAR, the Ultimate Inverter Battery, IT 500 Battery (EXIDE) and compensation of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand) only along with Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only towards suffering and litigation cost respectively.
The Complainant has relied upon the following documents to establish his case.
Xerox copy of money receipt of purchase vide serial No. 9631 on Dt.14/07/2012 issued in favour of the Complainant.
Xerox copy of warranty card issued in favour of the Complainant on the same date.
The above xerox copies were verified with the original ones.
This Forum admitted complaint petition on Dt.17/08/2015, notices are duly issued to the Opposite Parties for their appearance and version, SR back after duly served but the Opposite Parties did not turn up personally or appear through their legal representative. Accordingly the Opposite Parties were set ex-pate on Dt.01/03/2017. The case was posted for ex-parte hearing on Dt.14/03/2017.
Heard the Complainant and posted the case for ex-parte order.
This Forum perused the complaint petition and the documents relied by the Complainant. After careful scrutiny of the same it is found that the Complainant has purchased one EXIDE Battery from Opposite Party No.2(two). The Opposite Party No.2(two) has issued the money receipt in that regard vide Sl. No. 9631 Dt.14/07/2012. The Complainant in his complaint petition alleged that during the warranty period the Battery purchased by him shows defect and he has sincerely approached the Opposite Parties either to remove the defects occurred in the Battery or to replace the same with a new one. But the Opposite Parties failed to provide the necessary service to the Complainant nor replaced the defect Battery with a new one. The warranty card issued by the Opposite Party No.2(two) shows that the defect occurred within the warranty period. The Opposite Parties to counter the Complainant case neither appeared in this case nor submit any documentary evidence to disprove the case of the Complainant.
The Forum by relying upon a citation of the Hon'ble Chhatisgarh State Commission, Raipur in Krishna Kumar Sahu Vrs Manager, Jai Sheri Electronies and others, reported in 2010(1) CPR 149 wherein it is held that “It is the duty of Manufacturer/Dealer to repair the defective product during warranty period within a reasonable time” .
The basic spirit behind enactment of a benevolent legislation like the Consumer Protection Act-1986 involves better protection of the interest of consumers and basic job given to the authorities set up under the Act is to provide speedly justice to the consumer and remove his helplessness vis-a-vis powerful business class, within the ambit of law (Malwa Authomobiles Pvt. Ltd Vrs Sunanda Sangwan and Others 2013(4) CLT 284 (NC)).
This Forum after going through all the documents available in the case record and after hearing the Complainant it come s to the conclusion that the Complainant is a genuine consumer of the Opposite Parties, U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986. And by not providing proper service to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are guilty of deficiency in providing consumer service to the Complainant for which both are jointly and severally liable thereunder.
In the result, the Forum allowed the case of the Complainant.
- O R D E R -
The Forum hereby directed the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, to replace the old EXIDE Battery bearing No. IRD 084080 with a new INVA TUBULAR )the Ultimate Inverter Battery) IT 500 Battery (EXIDE) to the Complainant. If the same make and model is not available in the market then the Opposite Party alternatively shall refund the cost of the Battery of i.e. Rs.13,000/-(Rupees thirteen thousand)only along with Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only towards compensation, for harassment, mental agony and litigation expenses to the Complainant within one month from the date of Order, failing which total awarded amount shall carry interest @12%(twelve percent) per annum till the actual date of realization of amount.
The Complainant is directed to return back the defective Battery to the Opposite Parties after receiving of the new Battery or cost of the Battery as per above Order.
The Complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, ( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
Member (W).
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) (Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t.
