Adv.Ravi susha, Member

          Complainant is the owner of bus having Reg.No.KL 3L 2187. For using inside the bus the complainant purchased a battery having No.MFG Code 4E1, Serial No.232539 from the second opposite party by virtue of Rs.6350/- on 15/06/2011. The battery is having a warranty of one year. Within the warranty period the battery showed defect. Hence the complainant entrusted the battery to the second opposite party for acting as per the warranty condition. But they did not do so. Hence issued Advocate notice on 18/04/2012. But no result. Hence filed this complaint for getting relief and compensation.

          Notice was issued to opposite parties 1 and 2. After receiving the notices opposite parties 1 & 2 did not appear before the Forum. Hence both of them were set –

(2)

exparte. Complainant filed affidavit and produced five documents. Complainant was examined as PW1, and marked the documents as Exts.P1 to P5. Complainant was heard. As the opposite party did not adduce any evidence we are constrained to believe the complainant’s case. Complainant proved his case through the affidavit and Ext.P1 to P5. From the evidence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties. Hence the complaint is entitled to get relief.

          In the result complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are directed to replace the battery having No.Mfg Code 4 E1, Serial No.232539 with view battery having no defect. Opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant. Order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

Dated this the 30^th day of June 2012.

G.Vasanthakumari  :Sd/-

Adv.Ravi Susha       :Sd/-

R.Vijayakumar        :Sd/-

List of documents

P1      - Original Cash bill dated:15/06/2011

P2      - Notice       

P3      - Advocate Notice

P4      - Postal Receipt

P5      - Warranty card of battery