This is a complaint made by Shri Sukhendu Halder against M/s. National Automobile, 783, Diamond Harbour Road, Sakher Bazar, P.S. Behala, Kolkata-700008, OP No.1 and Shri Kaushik Mitra, OP No.2 praying for a direction upon the OPs to repair and replace the battery with a new one to make the vehicle in good running condition keeping in view that the battery was within the warranty period and for compensation of Rs.15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-.
Facts in brief are that OP No.1 is a whole seller/dealer of Yo-Xplor vehicle and OP No.2 is the local selling agent of such product. In the month of October, 2013 Complainant visited the show room of OP No.2 when Shri Kaushik Mitra introduce himself as owner of M/s. Radharani Yo-world and local selling agent of Yo-Xplor vehicle. Said Koushik Mitra also assured that free service would be provided.
On being satisfied Complainant handed over his vehicle on 3/10/2013 and agreed to purchase a new Yo-Xplor battery operation system. On the same day Complainant paid Rs.40,500/- by Cheque No.251902 dated 3/10/2013.
On 16/10/2013 Kaushik Mitra delivered the Complainant’s vehicle and issued an invoice being No.42 dated 16/10/2013 for Rs.40,500/- together with warranty.
On or about October, 2014 battery started not working. Complainant went to the OP No.1’s workshop when he found that shop was closed. Ultimately Complainant anyhow searched OP No.2 and asked him to give service. Complainant served a notice to that effect. But he did not get service. So Complainant went to Consumer Affairs Department where also dispute could not be resolved. So Complainant files this case.
OP No.2 files written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further OP has stated that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of party because manufacturer of Xplor has not been made a party and the warranty was given by the manufacturer. OP No.2 has also stated that without manufacturer he has no liability. In addition OP No.2 has stated he is only selling agent. He has nothing to do with manufacturing defect. So he has prayed for dismissal of this complaint.
By way of amendment the name of manufacturer has been brought on record. But OP No.1 did not contest the case and so it was heard ex-parte against OP No.1. OP No.3 files affidavit-in-reply against the Complainant’s questionnaire. OP No.2 also files evidence. Thereafter argument was heard.
Decision with reasons
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to reliefs as prayed for.
On perusal of complaint petition it appears that Complainant has prayed for a direction upon OP to repair or replace the battery.
On perusal of copy of money receipt it appears that Complainant paid Rs.40,500/- for battery on 16/10/2013. It is the case of the Complainant that battery stopped working from October, 2014. As such it is clear that upto one year there was no complaint. Further at the time of argument it was argued on behalf of OPs that Complainant did not get the service of the vehicle/battery done as instructed. Accordingly we are of the view that Complainant is not entitled for replacement of the battery. However, it appears that OPs are liable for repairing the battery as appearing in the terms and conditions amongst the parties. Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-.
Whatsoever may be the terms and conditions but it is clear that Complainant took some pain for filing the case and incurred some expenses for undertaking this proceeding. As such Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- which he has sought.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
OPs are directed to repair the battery in terms of the agreement made between them. In addition OPs are directed to pay Rs.2,500/- as compensation and litigation cost within three months of this order.
