Present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date has been filed by Shri Hardeep Singh complainant against opposite party M/s. Ravinder Auto Engg. Works, opposite G.N.B.L. College, G.T. Road, Phagwara <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> District Kapurthala, as Dealer through Ravinder Prop., and opposite party No. 2 M/s. Exide Industries Limited, Registered Office Exide House, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata as manufacturer through its Managing seeking direction against them to refund the price of the defective Exide Battery and for monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service.<br /> 2. In nutshell, the facts in the complaint are that the complainant purchased two Exide Batteries from opposite party No.1 vide bill dated 1.5.2007 for Rs.18,000/- i.e. Rs.9000/- for each Battery and warranty period was 30 months from the date of its purchase vide warranty card. It is alleged that one of the Batteries Sr. No. ST-500 39330 was found to be defective as it went out of order after two months of its purchased in August, 2007. He complained to the opposite party No. 1 about the defective nature of this Battery and the same was kept by the opposite party No. 1 for testing and its smooth functioning. Lateron, the opposite party No. 1 told that the Battery was working properly and there might be defect in its inverter. He also stated that this explanation of the opposite party No. 1 (Dealer) was not correct one as he operated another Battery of his relative with the said inverter and the same was found in perfect order. Again Dealer opposite party No. 1 told the complainant that the Battery be sent to opposite party No. 2 and that he would be informed accordingly on telephone. It is further alleged that the opposite party failed to correct that defect in the Battery, nor replace it despite his several visits and as such, the complainant suffered physical harassment mental agony for which he is entitled <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> to the relief as claimed in the complaint against both the opposite parties. <br /> 3. Both the opposite parties served through registered post but <br /> failed to come present, nor A.D. received back as such, they were presumptively served. So both the opposite parties were proceeded against ex-parte.<br /> 4. The complainant tendered in ex-parte evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1, copy of bill Ex. C2 alongwith copy of warranty card Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. He reiterated the allegations of complaint in his affidavit Ex.C1 about the purchase of two Batteries vide Bill Ex.C2 worth Rs.18,000/- i.e. Rs. 9000/- for each Battery. The warranty period was 30 months vide Ex.C3. He has alleged that the Battery bearing Sr. No. ST-500 39330 was found to be defective as it went out of order after two months of its purchase in August, 2007 and its defect was not removed nor the same was replaced on one pretext or the other by the opposite party No. 1 despite several requests which resulted in his mental agony and physical suffering and also monetary loss. His averments in the affidavit are supported by the bill and warranty card, have not been rebutted by the opposite parties as they have failed to appear in the case. <br /> Therefore, we accept the complaint and allow the complaint ex-parte and direct both the opposite parties to replace the defective Battery bearing Sr. No. ST-500 39330 within a period of one month from the receipt of copy of this judgment jointly and severally failing which to refund the amount of Rs.9000/- alongwith Rs.3,000/- as monetary compensation on account of deficiency in service and for mental <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant with Rs.1000/- as costs of litigation. Let certified copy be sent to the parties through registered post free of costs without any delay. File be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dated: Shashi Narang A.K. Sharma<br /> 04.09.2008 Member President