BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWNI.
Complaint No. 186 of 2013.
Date of Institution: 9.4.2013.
Date of Order: 7.8-2014.
Krishan son of Shri Chhaju Ram, resident of village Bamla-1, tehsil and district Bhiwani.
Versus
….…. Complainant
- Microtek International Pvt. Ltd. H-57, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi, through its Chairman/M.D.
- K.K.Electronics, 388, Old Housing Board Colony, Opposite H.U.D.A. Park, Bhiwani through its Prop.
…….Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Balraj Singh, Member,
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,
Present: Shri Rakesh Vats, Adv. for complainant.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Adv. for OP No.2.
Shri Naveen Kumar, OP No.1 in person.
ORDER
In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased One Battery and Inverter of Microterk company from respondent No.1 which was manufactured by OP No.2 for a consideration of Rs.8000/- and Rs.40000/- respectively with the stipulated warranty. It is alleged that soon after purchase the Battery & Inverter became defective within warranty period and complaint was lodged with respondent No.2 who told that Inverter and Battery are faulty, hence they stopped working and the same was repaired. The complainant further alleged that the above said Inverter & Battery again & again became out of order due to having manufacturing defect and the respondent No.2. The complainant further alleged that respondent No.2 instead of repairing the above said items did not accept the inverter but only accepted the battery for repairing the same. The complainant further alleged he requested the respondent No.2 to return the Battery and to repair the inverter but he did not pay any heed, hence the complainant is deprived of use of the inverter and battery since its purchase and suffered a loss. Now the complainant has claimed the replacement of the inverter and battery along with compensation and costs.
2. OP No.1 on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that information to the answering respondent has been given much after the expiry of warranty period. Even otherwise the answering OP was never contacted for any grievance. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP No.2 on appearance filed separate written statement alleging therein that it has been clearly mentioned on cash memo that goods once sold will not be taken back and the responsibility of the firm/seller ceases responsibility when the goods leaves the premises. Even otherwise also battery in question was never brought to the answering respondent. However, the inverter was brought to the shop of answering respondent twice and the same was repaired and complainant has taken back. Thereafter the inverter was not brought to the shop of answering respondent nor any complaint was made. Therefore, it appears that the complainant has filed the present complaint after using the inverter & battery for a long period only to get the same replaced with new one. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering respondent and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3- Both the parties have filed their duly sworn affidavit in their evidence to prove their respective version.
4- We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.
5- After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant deserves dismissal, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased Battery and Inverter of Microterk company from respondent No.1 which was manufactured by OP No.2 for a consideration of Rs.8000/- and Rs.40000/- respectively. From the perusal Para No.5 of complaint it reveals that the complainant has claimed for return of Battery but in relief clause Para 15(a) the complainant has claimed to return the aforesaid completely repaired inverter & battery or new pieces of inverter and battery in lieu of defected inverter & battery. We have failed to understand as to why the complainant has taken two stands for claiming once repaired battery or another both inverter or battery after repair or to return new pieces. The complainant has failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove his version that the Inverter & Battery in question is still lying with the OP. On the other hand, the OP No.1 has successfully proved his case by placing on record affidavit of Nitin Kumar to prove his version. Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 7.8.2015.
Anita Sheoran) (Balraj Singh)
Member. Member.
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes Forum, Redressal Bhiwani. Redressal Forum, Bhiwani
