BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint no.58/14.

Date of instt.: 11.03.2014. 

                                                 Date of Decision: 08.05.2015.

Rajinder Singh son of Sh. Pirthi Singh, resident of Village Kheri Sheru, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.      

                                        Versus

1. Mamta Enterprises through its Proprietor (Dealer/Seller) Jind Road, Kaithal.

2. Exide Industries Limited, Regd. Office 59-E, Chowringhee Road Kolkata-700020, manufacturing company through its M.D. 

..……..Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :        Sh. Krishan Dhull, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Kuldeep Dhull, Advocate for the opposite party.No.1.

Op No.2 already exparte. 

                       ORDER

(RAJBIR SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased the Exide INVA TUBULAR batteries batch No.35B, Sr.No.303452/303502 on 08.10.2010 with the warranty of 48 months and the complainant paid Rs.24,800/- for two batteries to Op No.1.  It is alleged that the said batteries were defective and the batteries back-up was very slow.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.1 and after seeing the batteries, the Op No.1 told the complainant that there is manufacturing defect in the batteries, so, he will sent it to the company.  It is further alleged that the complainant asked about the said batteries after one month but the Op No.1 told that the above-said batteries are not returned back from the company till now.  It is further alleged that the complainant approached the Op No.1 several times but the Op No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other.  This way, the Ops are deficient in service.  Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum, whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 25.04.2014.  Op No.1 filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Op.  On merits, it is stated that the Op No.1 is not responsible in any manner, rather the manufacturer company is responsible for any defect within warranty period, if any and the Op No.1 has sent the above-said battery to the manufacturing company for removal of defect.  The other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of their case, both the parties submitted their affidavits and documents.  

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely.

5.     We have perused the complaint & reply thereto and also have gone through the evidence led by the parties. 

6.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant purchased the Exide INVA TUBULAR batteries batch No.35B, Sr.No.303452/303502 on 08.10.2010 with the warranty of 48 months and the complainant paid Rs.24,800/- for two batteries to Op No.1.  The said batteries were defective and the batteries back-up was very slow.  On 17.04.2015, statement of both the parties was recorded.  Statement of ld. Counsel for the complainant was recorded to the effect that he purchased two batteries and both were defective.  The Ops had replaced one battery, whereas one battery is still pending.  Statement of Sh. Ravinder Kumar, Prop. was also recorded to the effect that he had replaced the one defective battery with new one and second battery was also replaced with service battery on 20.02.2014.  Ld. Counsel for the Op No.1 vehemently contends that the Op No.1 is not responsible in any manner, rather the manufacturer company is responsible for any defect within warranty period, if any and the Op No.1 has sent the above-said battery to the manufacturing company for removal of defect.  Whereas Op No.2 did not appear and opt to proceed against exparte vide order dt. 25.04.2014.  So, we find modi-cum of merit in the submissions of ld. Counsel for the complainant.  Hence, we are of the considered view that the Op No.2 is deficient while rendering services to the complainant.

7.     Thus, in view of above discussion, we allow the complaint qua Op No.2 and direct the Op No.2 to replace the defective battery with new one of the same model as purchased by the complainant vide bill No.3270 dt. 08.10.2010 or to refund the cost of said battery to the complainant.  No order as to cost.  Let the order be complied within 30 days, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled interest @ 8% p.a. on the cost of battery from the date of commencement of this order till its payment.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.08.05.2015.

                        (Harisha Mehta),                 (Rajbir Singh),   

                             Member.                              Presiding Member.