BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.

Complaint No.136/17.

Date of instt.: 23.5.2017. 

                                                Date of Decision:27.11.2017.

Rajinder s/o Shri Sube Singh, r/o VPO Kasan, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal.

                                                        ……….Complainant.     

                                         Versus

M/s Aman Battery House, r/o Balu Road Kasan, Tehsil & Distt. Kaithal through its Prop. Manphool.

..……..Opposite Parties.

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

Before:           Sh. Rajbir Singh, Presiding Member.

     Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.

Present :       Shri Ramesh Kasan, Adv. for the complainant.

                       Shri Vinod Bura, Adv. for the Op.

                       ORDER

(HARISHA MEHTA, MEMBER).

                       The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he purchased a battery Sparkle 36 M SR-9029 on dt. 6.6.2014 with 36 months warranty vide receipt No.192 dt. 06.6.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,900/-. It is alleged that after expiry of three months, the said battery became defective due to mechanical defect and its back up was not according to the assurance/ warranty of the Op. It is further alleged that on his request, the Op have replaced the defective battery and gave another battery bearing No.14F10368 which was already defective. It is further alleged that he approached the Op many times to replace the defective battery, but the Op did not replace the same and finally refused to change or replace the same. It is further argued that he sent a legal notice to Op through his counsel on dt. 2.5.2017, but all in vain. This way, the Op is deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.   

2.     Upon notice, the opposite party appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; that the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the manufacturer is the necessary party and in absence of which, the present complaint cannot be decided effectively and that the Sparkle India through its authorized officer, Sagar Power Products, Plot No.80, Ladwa, Distt. Kurukshetra is the necessary party. On merits, the other contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.    

3.     In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed evidence on 06.10.2017. On the other hand, Op tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Ex.R1 & Ex.R2 and closed evidence on 06.11.2017.   

4.     We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

5.     Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we found that the complainant has purchased a battery Sparkle 36 M SR 9029 on dt. 06.6.2014 with 36 months warranty vide receipt No.192 dt. 06.06.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,900/- (Ex.C1). The ld. counsel for the complainant contended that after three months from the purchase of said battery, its backup was not according to the assurance/ warranty of the Op. It is further argued that on the request of the complainant, the Op replaced the defective battery and gave another battery bearing No.14F10368, which was also defective. It is further argued that the complainant issued a legal notice to the Op, but the Op flatly refused to replace or repair the defective battery. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the Op has argued that the present complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party as the manufacturer i.e. “Sparkle India through its authorized officer, Sagar Power Products, Plot No.80, Ladwa, Distt. Kurukshetra” is the necessary party and in absence of which, the present complaint cannot be decided effectively. From perusal of complaint, it is clear that the complainant has only made the party to the dealer i.e. the Op, whereas, the complainant has not made the manufacturer as party. The Op has specifically mentioned in the terms & conditions No.2 of Bill/receipt (Ex.C-1) that “Replacement will be according to the Company” and he is not liable for the same. So, for proper adjudication of the complaint, the manufacturer/company is necessary party. Moreover, the Op has taken a preliminary objection that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the manufacturer and gave the particulars of the manufacturer in his reply. But inspite of the disclosure of the particulars and address of the manufacturer, the complainant has failed to implead the manufacturer as party in the present complaint. In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. the manufacturer as the complainant has failed to implead necessary party in the complaint.

6.     Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced.

Dt.27.11.2017.

                                (Harisha Mehta),             (Rajbir Singh),       

                                        Member.                        Presiding Member.

Present :        Shri Ramesh Kasan, Adv. for the complainant.

                    Shri Vinod Bura, Adv. for the Op.

                    Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.

Dated:27.11.2017.         Member                  Presiding Member.