DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 27th day of July, 2018
Present 1. Shri Raghunath Kar, President
2. Shri Basanta Kumar Mallick, Member
3. Afsara Begum, Member
C.D Case No. 70 of 2016
Sri Rajendra Kumar Pati
S/o: Jagabandhu Pati
At/Po: Kuansh
Ps: Bhadrak (R)
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. M/S Battery Care
Plot No- 2284, Jayadeva Vihar Square,
Oberal Road, Bhubaneswar- 751013
2. M/s Saraswati Auto Supply Agency,
Salandi By-pass,
At/Po/Dist: Bhadrak
3. M/s Lucky Automobiles, N.H- 5,
Januganj, Remuna Golei
Dist: Balasore
4. Managing Director,
M/s Excide Industries Ltd.
59E, Chowringhee Road
Kolkata- 700020
…………………………..Opp. Parties
Advocate For the Complainant: Sri T. Panda
Advocate For the OP No. 1: Sri A. K Tripathy & Others
Advocate For the OP No. 2: Sri Kishore Bal
Advocate For the O.Ps No. 3 & 4: Ex-parte
Date of hearing: 21.11.2016
Date of order: 27.07.2018
SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed the complaint alleging against the O.Ps for deficiency of service, that the complainant purchased one Excide battery from the OP No. 1 through the Sub-dealer OP No. 2. The complainant is dealing in car hiring business being owner of Tata Indigo Car bearing Regd. No. OR 02 BM-5046. The complainant used to purchase batteries from the OP No. 2. When the complainant approached the OP No. 2 to sell one Excide Battery, the opposite party having no stock of the said battery, transmitted the message to the main dealer, M/s Battery Care, the OP No. 1. The complainant purchased from the OP No. 1 one Excide Battery MT 700 on 07.02.2015 for consideration of Rs 5,800/- and obtained money receipt. The said battery was fitted in the above mentioned vehicle. That for some months the battery functioned properly, but all of a sudden on 16.05.2016, the battery stopped being charged for which the complainant deposited the said battery with OP No. 2 on 17.05.2016 and obtained a receipt thereof. The OP No. 2 transmitted the said battery to their service Dept. the OP No. 3 is M/s Lucky Automobiles at N.H- 5 Januganj, Remuna Golei, Balasore. On 27.05.2016 the complainant & OP No. 2 came to know that the warranty claim request No. TR/EX/BSR/4666585 has been denied by the OP No. 1 on 21.05.2016. The OP No. 3 the service engineer of the OP No. 1 has mentioned the cause of defect which is denied by the complainant. The complainant also stated that the vehicle was running nonstop, so the cause of defect shown in a, b, d & e is only to avoid pre replacement. When the vehicle was running was declined from log sheet, the cause of defects were shown in the battery which was left charged for a long period. The OP No. 1 with an ulterior motive declined the claim of the complainant. The complainant is lawfully entitled to free replacement as per the battery of Excide battery as per terms and conditions of warranty period 18 months of the date of purchased for M-I-700 but the OP No. 1 declined the rightful claim with malafide intention. The complainant made various efforts to set things right and made personal visit to get the free replacement but no effect was there. The complainant is lawful entitled for free replacement the excide battery for the period of 18 months for the date of purchase of M-I-700 but the OP No. 1 denied the claim of the complainant with malafide intention on 27.05.2016 when the cause of action arose. Hence the complainant has sought for the reliefs as follows:-
1. To pass and order for the free replacement and with a new battery.
2. The O.Ps be directed to return the price of the said battery.
3. The O.Ps be directed to refund back price of the said battery to the complainant.
4. The O.Ps be directed to pay the compensation towards the mental agony and to pay Rs 5,000/- to the complainant towards the cost of the litigation.
Documents filed by the complainant (Xerox copies):-
1. Retail invoice issued by the Battery Care on 07.02.2015- 1 sheet.
2. Warranty claim form record of purchase Page- 1/2 on 17.05.2016.
3. Warranty claim form record of purchase Page- 2/2.
4. Warranty claim form Redemption Record 1 & 2.
5. Warranty claims- 2 sheets.
6. Letter from service engineer from Excide Company to the complainant- 1 sheet.
The OP No. 1 has filed the written version as follows:-
The OP no. 1 has denied the averments made in the Para- 1 of the complaint. He has also denied the Para- 2 & 3 of the complaint. He has also denied there is service Dept. at Balasore. He has also denied all the allegations made against him in Para- 7, 8 & 9 of the complaint. He has challenged the jurisdiction of the complaint. He has further averred that no deficiency of service made against the complainant. The OP No. 1 has averred that the complainant has never informed to the OP No. 1 regarding the defect of the battery before institution of the case. The OP No. 1 has challenged that the complaint is lacking the evidence & the consumership of the complainant as per Sec- 11 of the CP Act. He has also challenged that the complaint is barred by non-joinder of proper party. Hence he has prayed for dismissal of this case.
The OP No. 2 has filed his written version as follows:-
The OP No. 2 has admitted the Para- 1& 2 of the complaint as the OP No. 2 had no stock of battery as that point of time, he approached OP No. 1 to supply one Excide Battery to the complainant and accordingly the complainant purchased the said battery from OP No. 1 for a consideration of Rs 5,800/-. The OP No. 2 has admitted the facts that the averments made in the Para- 3 & 4 of the complaint is within the knowledge of the complainant. He has also admitted that the OP No. 2 received the defective battery which was transmitted to the Service Engineer of M/s Lucky Automobiles, Balasore. The averments made in the Para- 5 & other remaining paragraphs admitted by the OP No. 2. But he has not made prayer for dismissal of the complaint. The OP No. 3 & 4 have been set ex-parte for non filing of written version and non appearance in the Forum. The complainant is dealing in car hiring business being owner of Tata Indigo Car bearing Regd. No. OR 02 BM-5046. The complainant used to purchase batteries from the OP No. 2. When the complainant approached the OP No. 2 to sell one Excide Battery, the opposite party having no stock of the said battery, transmitted the message to the main dealer, M/s Battery Care, the OP No. 1. The complainant purchased from the OP No. 1 one Excide Battery MT 700 on 07.02.2015 for consideration of Rs 5,800/- and obtained money receipt. The said battery was fitted in the above mentioned vehicle.
OBSERVATION
We have already perused the complaint as well as the documents and the written version filed by the O.Ps. The OP No. 1 & 2 have no filed a single document to support their stands. We have already observed that the complainant have filed some relevant documents in support of him. It is a fact that he has purchased one Excide Battery from the OP No. 1 through sub dealer. The complainant is dealing in car hiring business being owner of Tata Indigo Car bearing Regd. No. OR 02 BM-5046. The complainant used to purchase batteries from the OP No. 2. When the complainant approached the OP No. 2 to sell one Excide Battery, the opposite party having no stock of the said battery, transmitted the message to the main dealer, M/s Battery Care, the OP No. 1. The complainant purchased from the OP No. 1 one Excide Battery MT 700 on 07.02.2015 for consideration of Rs 5,800/- and obtained money receipt. The said battery was fitted in the above mentioned vehicle. On 16.05.2016 the battery stopped to be charged and the said battery was deposited with the OP No. 2 on 17.05.2016 and obtained a receipt there of. The said battery was transmitted to the service depot of the O.Ps which is named & styled as M/s Lucky Automobiles at N.H- 5 Januganj, Remuna Golei, Balasore. The warranty period of the said battery was for 18 months from the date of purchase and from replacement is to be made by the OP No. 1 as per terms and conditions of warranty. The OP No. 1 have mentioned the cause of defects only to availed the free replacement the engineer of the service engineer has been prepared at the instigation of the OP No. 1. The complainant has not been returned back the said battery after servicing in a charging condition from the OP No. 1 & 2, but the entire allegation of the complainant has been made against the OP No. 1. Rather the OP No. 2 has admitted the stands of the complainant. The said battery had gone out of order within the warranty period. It is well established that the OP No. 1 have caused deficiency of service against the complainant. The complaint is maintainable and had been initiated in this Forum within the limitation period. The complaint is not barred by the proper party. The complainant has filed this case within proper jurisdiction and proper cause of action. The OP No. 1 is absolutely liable for the deficiency of service made against the complainant. Hence it is ordered;
ORDER
The complaint be and the same is allowed against the OP No. 1 & 2 on contest & ex-parte against the OP No. 3 & 4. The OP No. 1 is here by directed either to repay the cost of the battery which is amount to Rs 5,800/- to the complainant or replace the said defective battery in the shape of a new and charging conditioned one. The OP No. 1 is also directed to pay the complainant Rs 2,000/- towards mental agony & harassment & Rs 1,000/- for cost of the litigation. The O.Ps are further directed to carry out the order within 30 days on receipt of the same.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 27th July, 2018 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
