CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.958/2008
MRS. KRISHNA GUPTA
R/O E-120, AMAR COLONY,
LAJPAT NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110024
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S BOSE CORPORATION LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
D-148, OKHLA INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE-1,
NEW DELHI
- NEW DELHI MOTOR HOUSE
THORUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/PARTNER
22/23, AJIT ARCADE, KAILASH COLONY,
NEAR LSR COLLEGE, NEW DELHI
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:04.09.2018
O R D E R
H.C. Suri - Member
This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by Smt. Krishna Gupta against (1) M/s Bose Corporation Ltd. and (2) M/s New Delhi Motor House, hereinafter referred to as OP-1 and OP-2 respectively, submitted that she had purchased two Panasonic Batteries N100 make for her inverter for Rs.7901/- vide receipt no.18163 dated 13.8.2008 from the OP-2, and these batteries were stated to have been manufactured by OP-1. It is submitted that the inverter did not work when there was electricity cut off, and the mechanic who attended to the work told the complainant that the plate of one of the battery is broken and that is why the inverter was not working. The complainant complained about the same to the OP and requested for changing the battery but instead of changing the battery with new battery, the OP installed old and used battery in replacement and on being objected told the complainant that the new battery is not available in the stock and he would replace the same very soon. Thereafter the complainant repeatedly enquired about the replacement of the battery but the OP continued postponing the matter on the same pretext that the new battery is not available. Finally, a legal notice was issued to the OPs on 17.9.2009 and 29.9.2009. It is further submitted that in the month of October 2008, proprietor of OP-2 visited the house of the complainant with a letter from OP-1 that new battery is not available and the same would be replaced within 15 days but despite repeated requests and notices, the battery is not replaced, and the OPs are merely avoiding the complainant’s request to change the battery on the ground of non availability of the new battery, and the deliberate and malicious act of keeping at bay the persistent requests of the complainant is negligent and an act of deficiency is services. The prayer in the complaint is for issuing a direction to replace the battery of the complainant and grant Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental torture, in addition to award of costs, litigation expenses etc.
The notices were served on the OPs but they chose not to be represented or appear in person, and thus were proceeded ex parte.
The complainant filed ex parte evidence by way of her own affidavit and also filed written arguments in support of her claim. Same facts have also been stated in the oral arguments advanced by counsel for the complainant.
In view of the fact that the OPs have chosen not to appear and respond to the allegations made in the complaint, and the supporting affidavit and the documents filed by the complainant, we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to replacement of the battery or the refund of the price of one of the batteries i.e. Rs.3950/- which was found to be defective, of which plate was found broken. The complainant shall also be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from 01.01.2009. In addition to this, the complainant shall also be paid Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.3000/- towards litigation charges.
Let the order be complied with within one month of the receipt thereof. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
