D.o.F:04/12/2012

D.o.O:10/10/2013

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                          CC.NO. 324/12

                  Dated this, the 10^th   day of October  2013

PRESENT:

SMT.P.RAMADEVI             : PRESIDENT

SMT.BEENA K.G                : MEMBER

Mohammed Shereef.C ,S/o.Abdulla,

 R/at Chappakkal house, Kallar

, Po.Malakkallu, Chullikkara Kasaragod.                                                         : Complainant  

(Adv. P.Latheesh, Hosdurg)

1.Managing Director,

   Okya Power Ltd D-7 Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi  -110041    : Opposite parties

2. The Manager Plus Tech Solutions Behind

     Head Post office - Hosdurg Kasaragod

(Adv.N.K.Manojkumar,Hosdurg)

                                                       ORDER

SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT:

    The facts of the case in brief that the complainant has purchased 2 Lead Acid Batteries for Rs.7200/- from opposite party No.2 on 5/3/2011 having serial Nos T6415053088 and T6415053256 of model  No.24 M model UT100  which was manufactured by Ist opposite party.  These batteries  purchased by  the  complainant  for his  inverter at his shop .  Only after 3 months of its purchase the batteries are not capable of recharge since the batteries are not preserving charge.  According to the complainant both batteries have manufacturing defect.  The  complainant approached several times  to opposite parties for replacement or repairing the batteries but they did not the  same hence  this complaint is filed alleging  deficiency in service against opposite parties.

 2.      After admission of the complainant the forum issued notice to opposite parties.  Notice to Ist opposite party neither returned nor acknowledgment received . It is presumed under Sec.28.A.3 of Consumer Protection Act that the  notice is duly served. Hence name of Ist opposite party called absent  and set  exparte. .  2^nd opposite party filed  version and  admitted the  defect of the batteries.  According to him he intimated the  Ist opposite  party for replacing the batteries but he   did not respond in time. 2^nd opposite party also submits that  he is only the dealer and the Ist opposite party, the manufacturer is responsible for the warranty and he is not liable to compensate the complainant and he made several attempts to  rectify the defect or replace the batteries through Ist opposite party but Ist opposite party  not ready for the same and  the claim against 2^nd opposite party is to be dismissed.

     Here no oral evidence is adduced either party to the complainant .Exts. A1 to A6 marked on the side of the complainant .  No document is marked on the side of opposite parties. Heard both sides and document perused.

   After considering the facts of the case the question arose for consideration is

1.    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the  part of opposite party or not?

2.    If so what is the relief , costs and compensation.

        Here the Ist opposite party the manufacturer  has not appeared before the Forum.  The specific case of the complainant is that the batteries have got manufacturing defect.  2^nd opposite party also admits that the batteries are defective one.  In para  two of the written version of 2^nd opposite party specifically stated that “ the opposite party No.2 had contacted the Ist opposite party and informed and requested to come over or to replace the alleged defected parts.’’  From this statement itself shows that the batteries are  defective  one .  No other evidence  is required  to come into a  conclusion that the manufacturing defect of the batteries are not denied by 2^nd opposite party.  Hence the opposite parties failed to give after sale service to its customers.  The complainant is a business man and the batteries were purchased for inverter  using in his shop.  Denial of  after sale services itself shows   deficiency in  service.  Hence the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.  2^nd opposite party  submitted that he is only  the dealer and warranty is to be provided by the manufacturer and he is not liable to compensate the complainant.  Here the question is whether the dealer is liable or not.? In Eicher  others Ltd. Vs. Vijender  Singh(2012 CPJ II) NCDRC 586) the  Hon’ble National Commission decided that manufacturing defect -both manufacturer and dealer liable to pay compensation.

  In view of the above decision both the manufacturer and the dealer  are liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

      Therefore the complaint is allowed  and the opposite parties 1&2 are jointly and severally  directed to refund Rs.14,400/- being the price of two batteries and  take back the defective batteries and opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and  Rs.2000/- towards costs.  Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of copy of  this order. 

Exts:

A1&A2-warranty cards

A3&A5-dt.25/10/12-lawyer notice

A4&A6-postal receipt and A.D. card

Sd/                                                                                                                                         Sd/

MEMBER                                                                                                                PRESIDENT

eva

                                                                      /Forwarded by Order/