Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 22.01.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- including compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
From the Performa for filling complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Patna, it appears that the complainant had purchased Microtek battery from Chandan Raj Electronics ( Opposite party no. 2 ). It further appears that after purchase of the battery the same became out of order and the company refused to replace the battery. On behalf of opposite party no. 2 no written statement has been filed despite registered notice but on behalf of opposite party no. 1 a reply of the complaint petition has been filed. The respondent opposite party no. 1 has asserted that as per conditions mentioned in the warranty card the date of starting of warranty period of the battery start either from the date of purchase or from the date of dispatch code which ever is earlier.
The opposite party no. 1 has further asserted that the present date of dispatch of the aforesaid battery from the company is 21.03.2010 but the battery was sold to the consumer after 8 months against the rule and policy of the company.
It has been further asserted that the period of warranty was already exhausted as appears from the date of dispatch i.e. from 21.10.2010.
-
From bare perusal of receipt of purchase annexed with complaint petition it is crystal clear that the aforesaid battery was sold to the complainant on 21.11.2010. Thus the benefit mentioned in reply of opposite party no. 1 with regard to purchase of the battery more ‘ than 30 months or equal to 36 months ”, is applicable in the case of the complainant ( i.e. vide Para – 2 of the reply of the respondent – 1 ). As per this benefit the complainant is entitled to a new battery @ 20% discount on the prevailing maximum retail price because when we count the period from the date of sale of the battery to the purchaser then it comes more than 30 moths and less than 36 months because the case was filled on 10.05.2013.
It goes without saying that respondent in Para – 4 of his Parawise reply has himself asserted that “ Dispatch from the company is 21.01.2010 but the battery was sold to the consumer after 8 months against the rules and policy of the company.
Thus, it is crystal clear that opposite party no. 2 Chandan Raj Electronics has sold the battery to the complainant against the rules of company.
In view of the facts and circumstances we find and hold that by selling the battery against the rules of company definitely points deficiency on the part of opposite parties because it is the duty of the opposite party no. 1 to see that the products are not sold against the rules and regulation by distribution or retailers or the agent of opposite party no. 1.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the battery with new battery @ 20% discount in the prevailing maximum retail price within the period of three months from the receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite parties will have to pay interest @ 18% per annum on 11,600/- ( i.e. price of the battery shown in the receipt ).
The complainant is further directed to return the old battery to the opposite party at the time of receiving the new battery as per direction mentioned above, if the aforesaid battery is not in possession of the opposite parties.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs . 10,000/- to the complainant byway of compensation and litigation costs within the period of three months.
Thus this complaint petition stands allowed to the indication referred above.
Member President
