Haryana

Kaithal

49/20

Gurnam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Naveen Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

04 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.49/2020.

                                                     Date of institution: 24.01.2020.

                                                     Date of decision:04.07.2023.

Gurnam Singh son of Balbir Singh age 37 years, resident of Village Kawartan, Tehsil Siwan, District Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

Naveen Enterprises Chhatravas Road, Kaithal, through its proprietor (Dealer and distributor of OSMO R.O. and MID Black Electronic Goods), Mobile No.9992409206.

….OP.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     SMT. NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. SUNIL MOHAN TRIKHA, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Complainant in person.   

                Sh. Nitin Chhabra, Advocate for the OP.

               

ORDER

NEELAM KASHYAP, PRESIDENT

        Gurnam Singh-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the OP.

2.             In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had got installed inverter at his residence at Village Kawartan.  The complainant had purchased one battery make Green Force for his inverter for the sum of Rs.10,500/- on 01.06.2017 from the OP against the warranty of three years.  The case of complainant is that after six months of its purchase, it started working partly as it was not charging properly and its back up was less than only an hour.  The complainant approached the OP and the OP repaired the said battery but the same was not working properly.  The complainant approached the OP several times to repair or replace the said defective battery with the new one but the OP did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

3.            Upon notice, the OP appeared before this Commission and contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands; that the snaps of the battery in which the complainant attached in his complaint is the other battery.  The complainant in his complaint mentioned the name of the battery i.e. Green Force Battery and the snaps which are attached in his complaint is Vul-can, Selemun Grid i.e. other battery.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C7 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the OP did not produce any evidence despite availing several opportunities, so, the evidence of OP was closed vide court order dt. 16.09.2022.

6.             We have heard both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             The complainant has argued that he had purchased one battery make Green Force for his inverter for the sum of Rs.10,500/- on 01.06.2017 from the OP against the warranty of three years.  It is further argued that after six months of its purchase, it started working partly as it was not charging properly and its back up was less than only an hour.  The complainant approached the OP and the OP repaired the said battery but the same was not working properly.  The complainant approached the OP several times to repair or replace the said defective battery with the new one but the OP did not redress the grievances of complainant.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OP.

8.             On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OP has argued that the snaps of the battery in which the complainant attached in his complaint is the other battery.  It has been further argued that the complainant in his complaint mentioned the name of the battery i.e. Green Force Battery and the snaps which are attached in his complaint is Vul-can, Selemun Grid i.e. other battery.  It has been further argued that the complainant has attached warranty card in his complaint is fake one, in which the date of sale is mentioned as 02.01.2019 and condition of purchase is different as-well-as dealer is different i.e. Govind Battery Industries. 

9.             We have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.  From the pleadings and invoice dt. 01.06.2017 as per Annexure-C1, it is clear that the complainant had purchased one battery make Green Force from the OP.  The photographs as per Annexure-C2 to Annexure-C5 produced by the complainant are of some other battery i.e. Vul-Can, Selemun Grid.  The warranty card as per Annexure-C7 is also of other dealer i.e. Govind Battery Industries and the same is dt. 02.01.2019, whereas the battery in question was purchased by the complainant on 01.06.2017, as is clear from the invoice Annexure-C1.  Undisputedly, preamble of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is benevolent in nature but it does not give any liberty to anyone who wants to take undue benefit of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  So, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency on the part of Op.

10.            As a result of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.  There is no order as to costs.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:04.07.2023.

                                                                (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                President.

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.