Punjab

Sangrur

CC/449/2017

Ajaib Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Zimidara Tractors - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ajay K.Bansal

11 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 449                                                                                       

                                                             Instituted on:  06.09.2017                                             

                                                            Decided on:    11.12.2017

Ajaib Singh son of Shri Gurnam Singh resident of # 256, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Near Gurdwara Bhagat Ravidass, Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.   

Versus

1.       M/s Zimidara Tractors Gaushala Road, Sangrur through its Proprietor/ Partners.

2.       MTEK Power, D-7 Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041 through its Managing Director.

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:       Shri Ajay Kumar,  Advocate                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.1       :       Exparte .                          

 

FOR OPP. PARTY No.2       :       Shri Pargat Singh.

 

Quorum

                            

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg,  Presiding Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

                 

 

ORDER:  

 

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Ajaib Singh, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he  purchased a battery Microtec IT  from the OP no.1 on 14.05.2015 under two warranty. The said battery started giving problem of not charge the inverter after few days for which he approached the OP no.1  who changed the battery on 1.7.2015  with his old battery for the time being and thereafter the OPs again changed the battery with other old battery. This battery also started to giving same problem and complainant gave  the said battery at the shop of OP no.1  and demanded refund of money but the OPs did not do so. The complainant again lodged a complaint with OP no.2 on 27.01.2017. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to pay Rs.10000/- as cost of the battery  along with interest @12% per annum from the date purchase of battery i.e. 14.05.2015,

ii)     OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             Earlier OP no.1 has appeared through Shri Sarabjit Singh who filed reply but later on none has appeared for Op no.1 and as such Op no.1 was proceeded exparte. In reply filed by the OP no.1 purchase of the battery in question is admitted by the Op no.1 but OP no.1 has stated that the warranty on the said battery is only for 18 months for free replacement.

3.             In reply filed by the Op no.2,  it has been stated that  warranty was of 18 months which was ended on 13.11.2016. The battery was having any technical defect  during the warranty period  and same was replaced  with new one model on 1.8.2015. It has further asserted by the OPs that  warranty of the battery was not provided for  two years rather the same can be seen in the warranty card and the battery was carrying a warranty of 18 months  and after completion of 18  months  20 %  discount on new battery can be availed  by the complainant. The warranty period was ended on 13.11.2016 as per purchase date (invoice) of the battery  hence the OP no.2 cannot be held liable for any deficiency. 

4.             The complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 and closed evidence. The OP no.2 has tendered an affidavit Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.

5.             It is undisputed on record that the complainant purchased  the battery in question  from the Op no.1  on 14.05.2015 but the main point of controversy in the present complaint is whether the OPs are liable to refund the price/cost of the battery in question to the complainant or not ?

6.             The complainant has alleged in the present complaint that the battery in question being defective was replaced by the OPs with  an old battery for the time being on 1.7.2015  and thereafter  again  the OPs  changed the said battery with another old one. Ultimately when the problem was not resolved the complainant dropped the said battery at the shop of the OP no.1 in the month of October 2016.

7.             On the other hand, OPs have stated that the  warranty of the said battery was upto 18 months from the date of purchase i.e. from 14.05.2015 which was ended on 13.11.2016. It has also been stated by the OPs that  the replaced battery was having some technical defect  and again the same battery was got replaced  free of cost to the complainant on 13.06.2016.  It has further asserted by the OPs that  warranty of the battery was not provided for  two years rather same was of 18 months from the date of purchase which can be seen in the warranty card and the battery was carrying a warranty of 18 months  and after completion of 18  months  20 %  discount on new battery can be availed  by the complainant.

8.             The complainant has  neither produced any document which could not show that the warranty was two years from the date of purchase rather the OPs replaced the said battery twice which fact has been admitted by the complainant himself in his complaint. We have perused the warranty card Ex.C-3 which has been produced by the  complainant himself and find that in the warranty period it has been specifically mentioned that in case of warranty of the battery more than 18 months but less or equal 24 months, on the new battery discount of 20% will be provided on the prevailing maximum retail price. We feel that as the warranty of the battery of the complainant was ended on 13.11.2016 after availing 18 months free replacement period, the complainant is entitled for discount of 20% on the new battery on the prevailing maximum retail price as per warranty condition of the warranty card Ex.C-3 which was duly singed  and produced in the Forum by the complainant himself.

9.             For the reasons recorded above, we partly allow the complaint and direct the OPs to provide 20% discount  on the new battery  on the prevailing maximum retail price as per warranty condition of the warranty card Ex.C-3 to the complainant. We further order the OPs to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2000/- on account consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.       

10.           This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                       

                Announced

                                December 11, 2017

 

 

 

        (Vinod Kumar Gulati) (Sarita Garg)  ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Member                    Member                        President