Haryana

Kurukshetra

CC/329/2020

D.P. Singh S/o Khili Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Balak Auto - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

14 Mar 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL  COMMISSION, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.329 of 2020

                                                     Date of institution: 21.09.2020                                                                     Date of decision:14.03.2022                                                      

                         

D.P.Singh, HCS (retd). Aged 68 years, son of late Sh.Sh.Khili Ram resident of house no.227, Sector -7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra.

                                                                …Complainant.

                        Versus

1.M/s Balak Auto Traders near  Canara Bank, Railway Road, Kurukshetra Haryana (India).

2.Exide House 59E, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata, West Bangal (India) through its owner Rajan Raheja.             ….Opposite parties.

               

                Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:      Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Sh.  Issam Singh Sagwal, Member.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.

                Sh. Jaskaran Singh Prop.of OP No.1.

                Sh.K.K.Gupta Advocate for the OP No.2.

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been moved by D.P.Singh  against M/s Balak Auto etc.-Opposite Parties.

2.            It is stated in the complaint that the OP No.2 is a Public Limited company engaged in manufacturing and sale of Exide  Lead Batteries and the OP No.1 is authorized dealer Sh.Jaskaran Singh is owner of   Balak Auto Traders.  The complainant had paid Rs.6600/- for a new Exide battery fixed on his car bearing registration No. HR-07N-0227 Model 2009. It is submitted that the so called battery was fixed on his car on 6.8.2020 by OP No.1.  The said battery was old/worn out Exide battery though the old battery was in working yet I opted to change the battery as I have only said vehicle.  Being a diabetic patient on 10.8.2020 the complainant had to go  to Market to have medicines of himself and for that of his wife who is  B.P. patient but the car did not start. He called the roadside Mechanic who started the car and charged Rs.500/- He went to the owner of OP No.1 and asked him that OP no.1 has sold him old and worn-out battery which is lying in the dickey of his car. He  rang-up the OP No.1 many times but he hardly responded to his calls.  When the OP No.1 responded to the call of the complainant, he requested him to  pay Rs.6600/-  but he did not  responded.  On 2.9.2020 the complainant sent a registered letter demanding back money of Rs.6600/- but the Ops failed to do so.  He again reminded the Ops through letter dated 10.09.20020 but nothing has been done. It is further stated that on 14.09.2020, the complainant had to go to Temple  to pay his obeisance to Lord Shiva but the  car did not start. He had to hire auto rickshaw and spent considerable amount.  The complainant is 68 years old and  patient of              diabetics and his wife is 61 years and  patient of B.P.He further stated that he has also  purchased the  battery vide bill No.8097 dated 14.9.2020 for Rs.6400/-. The complainant is suffering mentally as he had to purchase another new battery due to act of the OP No.1 and 2. Thus, alleging deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, the complainant has filed the present complaint and prayed that the Ops be directed to refund the amount of Rs.13000/- alongwith the compensation of Rs.4.00 lacs alongwith litigation expenses.

3.             Upon notice Ops appeared and filed written statement disputing the  claim of the complainant. It has been stated that the complainant purchased a Exide battery from OP No.1 for installing the same in his car. The complainant complained to OP No.1 with regard to some problem in the said battery. The service engineer of OP No.1 immediately rushed to the complainant and took the alleged battery in question and installed a service battery in his car for his convenience. The service engineer of OP No.1 Sh.Naresh Kumar, checked the  said battery and found OK> Thereafter, the OP No.1  contacted the complainant and told him that the battery is OK and no fault was deducted by the service engineer of OPs and requested to take his battery but the complainant refused to take his battery back and demanded a new battery instead of battery in question from OP no.1 and threatened that he is a Retired HCS and has links with high ups and threatened to see the Ops in the court. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and it was submitted that there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

4.             The complainant in support of his case has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and closed his evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the Ops in support of their case have filed affidavits Ex.RW1/A and Ex.RW2/A and tendered document Ex.R-1 and closed their evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on the case file.

7.             The complainant while reiterating the averments made in the complaint has argued that complainant had purchased a new battery  for Rs..6000/-  and the said battery  was fixed on his car bearing registration No. HR-07N-0227 Model 2009.  It is further argued that the battery was old/worn out Exide battery. It is argued that being a diabetic patient on 10.8.2020 the complainant had to go  to Market to have medicines of himself and for that of his wife who is  B.P. patient but the car did not start. He called the roadside Mechanic who started the car and charged Rs.500/- He went to the owner of OP No.1 and asked him that OP no.1 has sold him old and worn-out battery which is lying in the dickey of his car. He rang-up the OP No.1 many times but he hardly responded to his calls.  When the OP No.1 responded to the call of the complainant, he requested him to  pay Rs.6600/-  but he did not  responded.  On 2.9.2020 the complainant sent a registered letter demanding back money of Rs.6600/- but the Ops failed to do so, which amounts to deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops while reiterating the submissions made in the written statement has argued  that on receipt of intimation of defect in the battery  the service engineer of OP No.1 immediately rushed to the complainant and took the alleged battery in question and installed a service battery in his car for his convenience. The service engineer of OP No.1 Sh.Naresh Kumar, checked the  said battery and found OK. Thereafter, the OP No.1 contacted the complainant and told him that the battery is OK and no fault was deducted by the service engineer of OPs and requested to take his battery but the complainant refused to do so. Thus, it is argued that there is no deficiency in services on the part of the Ops.

 

9.             In this case purchase of battery for his car by the complainant from OP No.1 for Rs.6400/- is not in dispute. From the evidence led by the complainant, admission of the Ops that the battery was checked and affidavit filed by the complainant, it is established that the Ops have given the worn-out/old battery to the complainant and as such the complainant is entitled to refund of the cost of the battery and as such the Ops have committed unfair trade practice while delivering the old battery to the complainant despite getting the cost of new brand. The complainant in whole of the complaint has claimed refund of Rs.6600/- but from the perusal of the bill Ex.C-2 shows that he had purchased the battery for Rs.6400/- only.  Thus having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider it fit to  order the Ops to return the sum of Rs.6400/- i.e. cost of the battery to the complainant and the complainant shall return the old battery to the Ops. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be accepted.

10.            In view of our above discussion and findings, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to refund the sum of Rs.6400/- i.e. cost of the battery to the complainant. The Ops shall also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- in lump sum as compensation for the mental harassment caused to the complainant and for the litigation expenses. The complainant shall return the old battery to the Ops. The Ops are further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 30 days from the date of preparation of the certified copy of this order, failing which the complainant shall be  entitled to initiate proceedings u/s  25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned as per the rules and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in the open Commission.

Dated: 14.03.2022.                                             President.

 

                                        Member.