BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.            

                                                          Consumer Complaint no. 55 of 2019                                                                           

                                                    Date of Institution         :    01.02.2019

                                                          Date of Decision   :    26.09.2019.

Ravinder son of Shri Mange Ram Kaswan, resident of village Balasar, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

                      ……Complainant.

                             Versus.

M/s Chhapola E-bike Healthy India, Sirsa Road, Ellenabad, District Sirsa.

  ...…Opposite party.

            Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.

Before:        SH. R.L.AHUJA…………………………PRESIDENT

          SH. ISSAM SINGH SAGWAL………….MEMBER

          SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………… …… MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. L.S. Srari,  Advocate for the complainant.

                   Sh. Ganesh Sethi, Advocate for opposite party.

ORDER

                   The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant purchased four batteries brand as Amptek for his electric scooty vide bill no.301 dated 28.10.2017 after every type of assurances given by opposite party about the good quality of the batteries and guarantee of one year. But inspite of proper care of complainant, the batteries became defective just after six/seven months of their use as the batteries power gone low and the charging outcome remain zero. The complainant approached the op and complained about the defect in the said batteries upon which the op kept the battery with the op and assured that within few days, he will provide new batteries to the complainant but the op failed to redress the grievance of complainant despite his several rounds to his shop. Now in the month of November, 2018, the op has openly refused to replace the batteries. It is further averred that it seems that op has sold out old batteries to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled for the refund of total amount of Rs.10,000/- alongwith interest and also reserves his right to sue the op under the criminal law. The complainant has also undergone harassment and mental agony on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of op, hence he is also entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-. That complainant sent a legal notice on 26.11.2018 to the op but to no effect. Hence, this complaint.

2.                On notice, opposite party appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in its present form, that complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties as the answering op is the only dealership agent of the Amptek company, which manufactures the Amptek batteries and complainant has not impleaded the manufacturing company as party to the complaint, that complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own act and conduct and that complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum. On merits, it is submitted that it was told to the complainant that the batteries have only six months guarantee plus six months warranty, which is clearly mentioned on the label affixed on the batteries. This fact is very well in the knowledge of the complainant. There was no any defect in the batteris as alleged. Moreover, when after passing the guarantee and warranty period the complainant approached to the op, then the batteries were replaced by op being prudent seller and complainant was fully satisfied, but he has filed the present complaint with an oblique motive. It is further submitted that complainant intentionally did not disclose the date of detecting alleged defect, because the batteries became out of guarantee and warranty and as per terms and conditions of the company, it cannot be replaced. It is further submitted that complainant under the guise of present complaint is blackmailing the op to fulfill the illegal demands. The complainant never visited the op during guarantee or warranty period to the premises of op, rather he visited after expiry of guarantee and warranty period and even then the batteries were replaced by op. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.

3.                The parties then led their respective evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

5.                The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has deposed and reiterated the averments made in the complaint. He has also furnished copy of bill Ex.C1, copy of legal notice Ex.C2 and postal receipt Ex.C3. On the other hand, op has furnished affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar, proprietor as Ex.RW1/A in which he has reiterated the averments made in the written statement. He has also furnished warranty sticker Ex.R1.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant had purchased four batteries for his electric scooty on 28.10.2017 from the opposite party against payment of Rs.10,000/-. As per version of complainant, guarantee of one year was given by op at the time of sale of the batteries. There was defect in the batteries just after six/seven months and he approached the op thereafter again and again but, however, the op did not bother rather given replacement with old batteries which also became out of order after few days. The complainant is entitled for replacement or refund of the amount of the batteries. 

 7.               The complainant in order to prove allegations in the complaint has placed on record bill Ex.C1, legal notice Ex.C2 which was sent to op vide registered post dated 26.11.2018. As per version of complainant, there was warrantee of one year for the batteries which he had purchased from op, but however, the record reveals that batteries were purchased on 28.10.2017 and notice for defect in the batteries was given vide legal notice dated 22.11.2018 which was dispatched on 26.11.2018 after expiry of period of warrantee of the batteries though complainant has alleged that after six months of the purchase of the batteries he had approached op regarding defect in the batteries and the op had replaced the batteries with old batteries, but however, complainant has not placed on record any such evidence in order to prove this plea and has failed to establish that the batteries purchased by complainant are still under the period of warrantee. It is settled principle of law that once period of warrantee has expired, complainant/ consumer has no right to approach the Consumer Forum for replacement of the product which is out of warrantee.

8.                In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.   

Announced in open Forum.                                                                 President,

Dated:26.09.2019.                       Member               Member             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                                                     Redressal Forum, Sirsa.