Haryana

Sonipat

CC/376/2015

Pardeep S/o Kanwal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Malhota Sales Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

N.S. Belhara

10 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.376 of 2015

                                Instituted on:07.10.2015

                                Date of order:10.03.2016

 

Pardeep son of Kanwal Singh r/o village Hullaheri, tehsil and distt. Sonepat.

…Complainant.         

Versus

 

1.M/s Malhotra Sales Corporation 12/541, Gurudwara road, near Chhoti Maszid, Sonepat through authorized dealer/distributor Sukam Battery Inverter.

2.Sukam Power System Ltd. Corp. address 54, sector 37, Udyog Vihar, Ph-VI, Gurgaon-121001 through its Managing Director/Authorized person.

 

                                                      …Respondents.

 

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. NS Balhara, Advocate for complainant.

           Sh. Vishal Tiwari Advocate for respondent no.2.

           Respondent no.1 ex-parte on 18.12.2015.

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

          D.V. RATHI, MEMBER.

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that he has purchased two batteries of Sukram company vide bill no.9792 from respondent no.1  for Rs.16400/- on 20.2.2014 and the respondents gave guarantee for 

Replacement of both the batteries if any problem or fault arises.  But the batteries provided by the respondent no.1 did not give any fruitful result and after five months, the said batteries started creating problems.  The complainant approached the respondents, but of no use.  However, after great persuation, the respondent’s electrician changed only one battery serial no.45304 on 10.8.2015 with battery serial no.55383 with the assurance that the replaced battery will work properly and due to second faulty battery which was not replaced on 10.8.2015, the new battery also stopped its working.  The complainant again made complaint to the respondents, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In the present case, only the respondent no.2 has appeared and filed its reply, whereas respondent no.1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18.12.2015.

          The respondent no.2 in its reply has submitted that the battery for which the present complaint has been filed, is out of warranty period provided by the respondent no.2. The battery was functioning properly till the period for which the warranty was provided by the respondent no.2.  The complainant after getting one battery replaced malafidely lodged another complaint within a span of 15 days against another battery vide complaint dated 25.8.2015 and the official of the respondent no.2 visited the premises on 30.8.2015 and found that the battery against which  the complaint was made by the complainant, was out of warranty period as provided by the respondent no.2 and as such, the respondent no.2 has rejected the claim of replacement of the battery of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the warranty policy.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation and prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.

          Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that he has purchased two batteries of Sukram company vide bill no.9792 from respondent no.1  for Rs.16400/- on 20.2.2014 and the respondents gave guarantee for Replacement of both the batteries if any problem or fault arises.  But the batteries provided by the respondent no.1 did not give any fruitful result and after five months, the said batteries started creating problems.  The complainant approached the respondents, but of no use.  However, after great persuation, the respondent’s electrician changed only one battery serial no.45304 on 10.8.2015 with battery serial no.55383 with the assurance that the replaced battery will work properly and due to second faulty battery which was not replaced on 10.8.2015, the new battery also stopped its working.  The complainant again made complaint to the respondents, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that

the battery for which the present complaint has been filed, is out of warranty period provided by the respondent no.2. The battery was functioning properly till the period for which the warranty was provided by the respondent no.2.  The complainant after getting one battery replaced malafidely lodged another complaint within a span of 15 days against another battery vide complaint dated 25.8.2015 and the official of the respondent no.2 visited the premises on 30.8.2015 and found that the battery against which  the complaint was made by the complainant, was out of warranty period as provided by the respondent no.2 and as such, the respondent no.2 has rejected the claim of replacement of the battery of the complainant as per terms and conditions of the warranty policy.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2 and thus, the complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation.

          In the present case, one thing is clear that one battery was replaced by the respondents.  As per the respondents, they have changed only one battery on 10.8.2015.  Thereafter the complainant again made request to the respondents for the replacement of second battery because his inverter was not working properly after installing the first battery.  But the respondent no.2 has failed to produce any report of the battery checked by the technical person on dated 10.8.2015 because after some day the complainant has again made the complaint regarding non-working of the battery due to replacement of the first battery. Thus, it is held that the second battery supplied to the complainant was defective and thus, it has not worked properly and the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.2.  Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.2 to replace the battery of the complainant within a period of one month from the passing of this order, failing which, the law will take its own recourse.

           With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)        (DV Rathi)                 (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF        Member DCDRF                   DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced: 10.3.2016