DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/351/2020

Date of Institution : 11.11.2020

Date of Decision : 02.02.2022

Vinay Kumar Garg son of Sh. Rishi Kumar Garg resident of H. No. B-V/ 16111, Sandhu Patti, Opposite Patwar Khana Barnala, District Barnala, Punjab (India)-148101, posted as Deputy Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Tapa, District Barnala. …Complainant

Versus

1. M/s Sharma Battery House, Exide Batteries, Exide and Microtek Invertors, College Road, Barnala, District Barnala, Punjab through its Prop/partner/Authorized Signatory.

2. Exide Industries Limited, Exide House, Chowringee Rd, 59E, Bhowanipore, Kolkata, West Bengal through its Managing Director/ Authorized Signatory Pin Code-700020.

…Opposite Parties

Complaint under The Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. Varinder Kumar Goyal Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Raghav Sharma Patner for opposite party No. 1.

Sh. Ajit Pal Singh for opposite party No. 2. 

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant Vinay Kumar Garg filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Sharma Battery House and another. (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant are that the complainant is owner in possession of one Duet VX Scooter bearing registration No. PB-19-P/2563 and purchased one battery for his scooter for Rs. 1,100/- and paid in cash vide invoice No. 3369 dated 5.7.2019 with guarantee warranty period for 18+18 months  i.e. 3 years from the date of purchase. 

3. It is further alleged that in the month of September 2020 the said battery gave some problem and complainant lodge complaint with the opposite party No. 1 but opposite party No. 1 given no response to provide service or to replace battery and ultimately told that the defect in battery is manufacturing defect and company is responsible for that. The complainant alongwith his father visited the shop of opposite party No. 1 on 6.10.2020 and requested to settle the matter but opposite party No. 1 flatly refused to do so and abuses to complainant and his father. The complainant made number of requests to the opposite parties to sold the problem but to no effect which is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant also served legal notice dated 8.10.2020 upon the opposite parties but all invain. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite parties may be directed to replace the battery with new one with guarantee etc from the date of replacement. 

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) To pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.  

4) Any other fit relief may also be given. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 filed written reply taking preliminary objections that present complaint is not maintainable and complainant concealed material facts. The complainant never approached answering opposite party in the month of September 2020, rather the father of the complainant came to the answering opposite party and told about the problem of the battery. The answering opposite party requested him to bring the vehicle or battery so he can check the defect but father of the complainant abusing the answering opposite party. It is not possible for the answering opposite party to get replace the battery from the opposite party No. 2 without verifying the defect of the said battery. 

5. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the battery from the answering opposite party and bill and warranty card was given to the complainant. Rest of contents of the complaint are denied by the answering opposite party. Lastly, the opposite party No. 1 prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint against the answering opposite party with heavy cost.  

6. The opposite party No. 2 also filed written reply taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and complainant concealed material facts. 

7. On merits, the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the complainant never approached the answering opposite party. Even after coming to about the present complaint the answering opposite party offered complainant for settlement of dispute but he is adamant for not resolving the matter. Rest of the contents of the complaint are denied by the answering opposite party. However, the answering opposite party is ready to replace the battery of the complainant as per norms and terms of warranty. Lastly, the opposite party No. 2 also prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint against the answering opposite party with heavy costs.

8. In support of his complaint, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, affidavit of Rishi Kumar Ex.C-2, copy of bill dated 5.7.2019 Ex.C-3, copy of RC Ex.C-4, copy of legal notice Ex.C-5, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-6 and Ex.C-7, copy of reply of legal notice Ex.C-8, affidavit of Vinay Kumar Garg Ex.C-9, affidavit of Narinder Singh Ex.C-10 and closed the evidence. 

9. To rebut the case of the complainant, the opposite party No. 1  tendered in evidence affidavit of Raghav Sharma Partner Ex.OP-1/1 and closed the evidence. The opposite party No. 2 also tendered in evidence affidavit of Ajit Pal Singh Service Incharge Ex.OP-2/1 and closed the evidence. 

10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by both the parties.

11. We have perused the copy of bill dated 5.7.2019 Ex.C-3 vide which it is proved on the file that complainant purchased the battery in question from the opposite party No. 1. Further, the opposite party No. 2 in their written version and affidavit of Ajit Pal Singh Ex.OP-2/1 deposed that the opposite party is ready to replace the battery of the complainant as per norms and terms of warranty. Even, the partner of opposite party No. 1 made a statement on 7.1.2021 that he is ready to replace the battery in question with the new one. 

12. In view of the written version and affidavit of opposite party No. 2 and statement of opposite party No. 1 dated 7.1.2021, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are directed to replace the battery of the complainant with a new one. The opposite parties are also directed to pay the consolidated amount of Rs. 2,200/- to the complainant on account of compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        2nd Day of February 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member