Tripura

West Tripura

CC/11/2017

Sri Sankar Prasad Laskar. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Bandhu Sundar Enterprise. - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.J.K.Sen, Mr.S.C.Sen.

21 Sep 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

CASE NO:  CC-  11  of   2017

Sri Sankar Prasad Laskar,
S/O- Lt. Rebati Mohan Laskar,
Krishnanagar, Nutun Palli,
Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,
West Tripura.                ...….…...Complainant.

      VERSUS          

      1. M/S Bandhu Sundar Enterprise,
Durga Chowmuhani(near Jamdani Museum/
Ratna Medical Hall), P.S. West Agartala,
Agartala, West Tripura.

      2. Exide India Pvt. Ltd.,
C/O- Podder Trading Co.,
Kashipur, Assam Agartala Road,
Opp. Niladri Motors(TATA CAR DIVISION),
Agartala- 799008, West Tripura.

      3. Regd. Office Exide House, 5E,
Chowringhee Road, Kolkata- 700020,
West Bengal.                ..............Opposite Parties.

 __________PRESENT__________
 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

For the Complainant        : Sri Jiban Krishna Sen,
                      Sri Sankar Chandra Sen,
                       Advocates.

For the O.P.             : Sri Koushik Deb,
                      
For the O.P. No.2 & 3         : Sri Niladri Mukherjee,
                       Sri Rajat Deb,
                      Sri Goutam Giri,
                      Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,
                      Advocates. 
                    
JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 21.09.2017.

J U D G M E N T    
          This case arises on the petition filed by one Sankar Prasad Laskar U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that on 05.10.16 he purchased one Exide battery from the shop of the O.P., Bandhu Sundar Enterprise on payment of Rs.1280/-. After few days of use of the scooty it was found that battery was not working properly. He made contact with the O.P. Proprietor of Bandhu Sundar Enterprise but he did not cooperate. Then he sent notice. But the battery was not changed. Petitioner could not use the scooty and spent huge amount in hiring taxi and auto. For harassment and mental suffering he claimed compensation amounting Rs.1,15,000/-.

2.        O.P. appeared and filed Written objection denying the claim. It is stated that the O.P. has sent a petition to the company for settlement of the grievance of the complainant. Then company sent new battery and the O.P. is ready to replace it. After filing of the petition Exide battery company was made party but they did not appear. 

3.        Petitioner produced the Email, letters, slip of Postal Dept., test report, reply of letter issued by the O.P., cash memo, DTDC receipt and statement on affidavit of complaint.

4.        O.P. No.1, on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of Sourav Bikas Dey, Proprietor of the Bandhu Sundar Enterprise. 

5.        On the basis of all these evidence following points cropped up for determination:
        (I) Whether there was deficiency of service by the O.P.?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation?

            Findings and decision;

6.        We have gone through all the documents and the evidences as given by both the parties. It is admitted position that battery was defective and the company is ready to replace it. The fact of purchase and the grievance of the petitioner is admitted and established by cash memo and other documents as produced. Petitioner claim huge compensation for using other conveyance hiring taxi or auto. Easily he could purchase another battery which value is only 1200/- without spending huge taxi fare. It is not reliable and believable. O.P. by speed post informed the petitioner on 14.03.17 company will replace the battery after due inspection and test. Battery was purchase as per cash memo on 05.10.16. After few days it was not working but when the complaint was made before the shop keeper is not clear. He requested on 21.11.16 as per the petition. So after 4 months request letter was sent in respect of replacement of battery by O.P. There was 4 months delay. For this 4 months delay petitioner is entitled to get Rs.2,000/- from the O.P. also litigation cost Rs.2,000/- total Rs.4,000/-. Replacement of the battery which cost is only 1280/- petitioner is not entitled to get more than that. As the company is already replaced the battery so, O.P is directed to take back the old battery in addition we direct the O.P. to pay Rs.4,000/-as compensation and cost of litigation. 
        

 Announced.

 

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.