View 397 Cases Against Battery
Rajinder Kumar S/o Ram Singh filed a consumer case on 26 Nov 2014 against M/s Jai Battery Power Project., Sonu S/o Krishan in the Karnal Consumer Court. The case no is 90/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 24 Jun 2015.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.
Complaint No.90 of 2014
Date of instt.1.04.2014
Date of decision: 11.06.2015
Rajinder Kumar son of Sh.Ram Singh resident of village Gudha tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal.
………..Complainant.
Versus
1. M/s Jai Battery Power Project, office at near telephone Exchange, Assandh Road, Kohand, tehsil Gharaunda District Karnal through its proprietor.
2.Sh.Sonu son of Sh.Krishan resident of near telephone Exchange, Assandh Road, Kohand tehsil Gharaunda district Karnal.
……… Opposite Parties.
Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer
Protection Act.
Before Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.
Smt.Shashi Sharma….Member.
Present Sh.R.K.Kanojia Advocate for the complainant.
OPs exparte.
ORDER:
. The facts giving rise to the present complaint, in brief, are that complainant purchased a battery from the OPs on 1.5.2012 vide invoice No.198 dated 1.5.2012 for a sum of Rs.8300/- .The OPs had given warranty of the said battery for a period of two years and assured that if there would be any problem within the warranty period, the battery would be replaced. In the first week of December, 2013 short back up problem developed in the battery. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the Ops and told about the problem .The Ops came to his house and took away the battery with an assurance to replace the same with a new one within seven days. On 25.2.2014 the complainant alongwith Parveen Dahiya, Sarpanch and Megh Rah husband of Sarpanch of village Kohand visited the shop of the Ops and the OPs assured to return the battery within ten days but even after ten days the battery was not
returned. The Ops avoided to return or replace the battery on one pretext or the other. On 12.3.2014, when the complainant contacted the OPs on telephone, the OPs abused him and threatened to face dire consequences if he visited the shop again. When he went to the shop of the Ops, he was caught hold of from the neck and beaten mercilessly. Ultimately, he got issued a legal notice from Sh.Vishal Turna, Advocate but the said legal notice was not received by the Ops. The complainant has claimed Rs.8300/- i.e. cost of the battery, Rs.20000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, but none put into appearance on their behalf despite service. Therefore, ex parte proceedings were initiated against them vide order dated 15.5.2014.
3. In the ex parte evidence, the complainant filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and affidavit of Shri Parveen Dahiya Ex.CW2/A and produced documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the case file very carefully.
5. As per allegations of the complainant he purchased a battery from the Ops on 1.05.2012 for a sum of Rs.8300/- . The OPs had given warranty of two years but in the month of December, 2013 short back up problem developed in the battery. He complained to the OPs who took away the battery with the assurance to replace the same. Thereafter, he visited the shop of the OPs on 25.2.2014 with Parveen Dahiya and Megh Raj and the OPs assured to return the battery within ten days, but despite that battery was not returned. Ultimately, he got issued legal notice to the OPs. The allegations of the complainant find support from his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, affidavit of Sh.Parveen Dahiya Ex.CW2/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C3. The evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted, therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, it stands established that there was deficiency in services on the part of the Ops, which caused financial loss and mental harassment to the complainant.
6. As a sequel to the foregoing discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the OPs to refund the cost of the battery i.e. Rs.8300/- to the complainant. The OP shall also make the payment of Rs.2200/- to the complainant for the harassment caused to him and towards litigation expenses. The OPs shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated:11.06.2015
(K.C.Sharma)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member.
Rajidner Versus M/s Jai Battery Power Project.
Present Sh.R.K.Kanojia Advocate for the complainant.
OPs exparte.
Arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced
dated:11.06.2015
(K.C.Sharma)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Karnal.
(Smt.Shashi Sharma)
Member.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.