BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 503 of 2010 | Date of Institution | : | 17.08.2010 | Date of Decision | : | 27.04.2011 |
Saurabh Sharma son of Sh.Tarsem Chand Sharma r/o H.No.1329, Sector 26, Panchkula. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. M/s Bhatia Auto Centre, SCO 100, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh. 2. M/s Amron Hi-Life Batteries, Corporate Office 12, Kadambakkam High Road, Chennai-600034. 3. M/s R.B.Enterprises, SCO 135, Sector 28-D, Chandigarh-160002 through its Representative Sh.Mukesh Tiwari. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER Argued by:Sh. Siddharth Yadav, Proxy counsel for Sh.N.K.Bajaj, Adv. for complainant. OPs already exparte. --- PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Sh.Saurabh Sharma has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. In short, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one Amron HI Life battery bearing No.3603277710866 AAM-HL-00036B20R for Rs.2600/- from OP-1 vide bill No.1477 dt. 05.07.07 with warranty of 36 months. It is the grouse of the complainant that in the month of October, 2008, the said battery started creating problems and as such he approached OP-1 and narrated the problems being faced by him who kept the battery with him and asked him to come after 20 days. OP-1 also made promise to get the battery replaced from OPs No.2 and 3. It is further the case of the complainant that in the month of December 2008, he again visited the OP-1 to know the status of the battery who in turn returned the battery with the plea that there is no defect in the same. As per the complainant, on the very next day when he tried to start his car, he faced the problem of non-starting and consequently, he again approached OP-1 who kept the battery with him as the battery was to be sent to OP-3(authorized distributor) to replace the same. It is the allegation of the complainant that he kept on visiting the OP-1 but the matter was lingered on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the OP-3 for replacement of the battery. In the month of March, 2010, OP-3 again assured the complainant to collect the battery within 2 months from OP-1. On 20.05.2010, the complainant again visited OP-3 and enquired about the status of the battery, who in turn told that the replacement of the battery has been received from the company and he can collect the same from OP-1. The complainant visited the OP-1 on 05.06.2010 and demanded the replacement of the battery but OP-1 refused to replace the same and gave him old battery. Thereafter, the complainant got served a legal notice 10.06.2010 upon the OPs but to no effect, hence, this complaint. 2. OP-1 duly served but nobody appeared, hence proceeded exparte on 16.03.2010. Initially OPs No.2 and 3 appeared but subsequently they absented and hence they were proceeded against exparte. 3. OP-2 filed reply and denied all the averments contained in the complaint. However, it is pleaded that the battery in question carries the warranty of 18 months for free replacement of equivalent/same size battery and another 18 months prorated compensation warranty from the date of purchase i.e.5.7.2007 provided that the battery was used as per the specifications mentioned in the warranty card and battery got damaged due to manufacturing defects. It is replied that OP-1 never approached OPs No.2 and 3. It is further replied that the complainant approached OP-3 only in May, 2010 (authorized service centre of replying OP). It is further replied that the complainant has used the battery for almost 16 months from the date of its purchase and he approached the OPs NO.2 and 3 in the month of May, 2010 for the defect in the battery and till then the period of 18 months warranty for free replacement had already expired on 03.01.2009. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the record. 6. The allegations contained in the complaint are supported by the affidavit of the complainant. The complainant has purchased the battery from OP-1 vide bill No.1477 dated 05.07.07 for Rs.2600/- (Annexure C-1). Annexure C-2 is the warranty card. The careful scrutiny of the terms and conditions of the warranty card referred to above makes it clear that the battery in question carries warranty for 18 months. The complainant has averred that the battery started creating problems in the month of October, 2008, so, it can legitimately be concluded that the problem in the battery arose between the warranty period of 18 months of its purchase from OP-1. 7. Admittedly, the OP Nos.1 and 3 despite service did not care to contest the case and as such it can be concluded without any hesitation that either they admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter. Moreover, the evidence led by the complainant has also gone un-rebutted and uncontroverted. 8. The OP-2 has admitted that the battery in question carries the warranty of 18 months provided it was used as per the specifications mentioned in the warranty card and the battery gets damaged due to manufacturing defect. To support and prove the said pleas, the OP-2 has not produced any cogent evidence except his self-serving affidavit which is not sufficient to prove that the battery was not used as per the specifications mentioned in the warranty card. 9. Now it is proved on record that the battery in question started creating problems and despite the repeated requests and visits of the complainant, OPs have failed to replace the same which amount to deficiency in service. Hence, OPs are jointly and severally liable to replace the same with a new one. Reliance placed on Punjab Agro Industries Corp. Vs. Sikandar Singh reported in 1999(2) CPC-165. 10. As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is accepted and OPs are directed to replace the battery of the complainant with same make and model failing which OPs are liable to refund Rs.2600/- i.e. the price of the battery to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization. OPs are also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment and costs of litigation. 11. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | Sd/- | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 27.04.2011 | [ Madanjit Kaur Sahota] | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | Member | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | DR. MRS MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER | | 
