DATE OF DISPOSAL: 10.07.2023

PER:   SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT:

The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievance before this Commission. 

2. The complainant purchased HI-POWER tubular battery and paid Rs.11,500/- after deducting the exchange value of old battery Rs.2500/- vide challan cum bill No. 107 dated 30.12.2017 from O.P.No.2 M/s Shakti Electronics, hence the total value of the battery Rs.14,000/-.  The aforesaid Hi-POWER tubular Battery is manufactured by O.P. No.1. At the time of purchase the complainant was issued with warranty card which is valid for 48 months and stipulates the condition. This being so the battery in questions started non-functioning at the time of power cuts by the Southco Utility while the warranty period is in force. The complainant accordingly informed the O.P. and requested for replacement of a good conditioned battery. The service technician inspected the said battery on 29.09.2020 but there was no outcome of his visit. The complainant is being a senior citizen move to O.P.No.2 time and again but there was no result. The complainant issued legal notice through his advocate for replacement of a new battery in place of battery bearing No. JV235742. Though the notice in question is served in time, the O.P.No.1 who is the manufacturer and liable for replacement of the defective battery kept silent without any steps taken till date. The O,.P.No.2 submitted the reply through advocate addressing to the advocate of the complainant on 15.5.2020 which was received on 16.05.2020. The complainant after waiting for necessary redressal of his complaint from O.P.No.1 & 2 was forced to purchase a new battery on payment of Rs.12,300/- from M/s Choudhury Battery, Townhall Road, Berhampur on dated 18.05.2020.  Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to refund of Rs.14,000/- towards the cost of the battery, compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- in the best interest of justice.

            3. Notices were issued against the Opposite Parties. The O.P. No.1 neither chooses to appear nor filed any written version in the stipulated time period as per C.P.Act, 1986. Mr. Kapileswar Patnaik, Advocate files vakalatanama and prays time on behalf of O.P.No.2 on 09.09.2020. Thereafter the OP no.2 did not attend the Commission and not filed any written version till date.  Hence all the O.Ps set exparte on dated 24.04.2023.

           4. To substantiate his case the complainant has filed affidavit in support of his case. 

           5. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard from the Advocate for complainant and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. The complainant purchased HI-POWER tubular battery and paid Rs.11,500/- after deducting the exchange value of old battery Rs.2500/- vide challan cum bill No. 107 dated 30.12.2017 from O.P.No.2 M/s Shakti Electronics, hence the total value of the battery Rs.14,000/-.  The aforesaid Hi-POWER tubular Battery is manufactured by O.P. No.1. At the time of purchase the complainant was issued with warranty card which is valid for 48 months and stipulates the condition. This being so the battery in questions started non-functioning at the time of power cuts by the Southco Utility while the warranty period is in force. The complainant accordingly informed the O.P. and requested for replacement of a good conditioned battery.  The service technician inspected the said battery on 29.09.2020 but there was no outcome of his visit. The complainant is being a senior citizen move to O.P.No.2 time and again but there was no result. The complainant after waiting for necessary redressal of his complaint from O.P.No.1 & 2 was forced to purchase a new battery on payment of Rs.12,300/- from M/s Choudhury Battery, Townhall Road, Berhampur on dated 18.05.2020.  

             6. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that though opportunity was given to the O.Ps to defend the case but they failed to do so. As such taking the sole testimony of the complainant into consideration it is presumed that the complainant’s contention is true.

7. On foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the Ops are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. The Commission relied upon the ruling laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in Jindlal Dealing And Industries v. Indocon Engineers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 3 (2006) CPJ 264 NC, that there was fault in the product when it was in warranty period so the complainant is a “consumer” under COPRA, 1986 and the opposite party failed to redress the complaints for repair within the warranty period so opposite party was ordered to pay Rs.30, 29, 477.” The principle of law reflected in Jindal (Supra) is applicable in the present case. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and they are liable to refund the entire battery cost to the complainant.

So, in the instant case the O.P. No.1& 2 negligently acted and caused a legal injury to the complainant so he needs to compensate. As far as compensation is concerned in this case, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards the loss suffered by him due to negligence of the OP. No.1& 2 in the fact and circumstances of the case However, he has not corroborated his claim by filling any cogent documentary evidence that his actual loss was Rs.20,000/-. Thus it appears to be hypothetical claim towards compensation.

             8. In the result, the complainant’s case is allowed on exparte against the O.Ps. The O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to refund Rs.14,000/- along with compensation of Rs.4000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum till its actual date of realisation and the complainant is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for realization of all dues. The complainant is directed to return the Hi-power tubular battery to O.P.No.2 on receipt of the value of the product and litigation cost. This case is disposed of accordingly.

 The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.

A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. A copy of this order be also sent to the Secretary, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Odisha, Cuttack for information.

The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.

Pronounced on 10.07.2023