Orissa

Jagatsinghapur

CC/140/2021

Shri Pratap Kumar Mallick - Complainant(s)

Versus

Navjyoti Honda - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

30 Sep 2022

ORDER

                                                                                             JUDGMENT

 

            Complainant has filed the consumer complaint in person U/s.35 of C.P. Act, 2019 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by way of deceiving the complainant by way of giving an old/duplicate battery instead of the original battery fixed with the vehicle.

            Notice was issued to opposite party on 01.9.2021 directing him to file his written version. But so far no body has appeared. The complainant has alleged that his vehicle went out of order after the servicing on 20.7.2021 in opposite party show room and starting problem arose in the vehicle for which he went to nearby garage and found that instead of his battery number 9832975 one damaged battery bearing No.9821733 has been replaced. In this respect the complainant went to show room on 09.8.2021 and requested to verify the C.C. TV footage but it was denied. Normally as we know that the C.C. TV footage remains recorded more than the period between 20.7.2021 and 09.8.2021. The opposite party in order to show their bonafied should have verified the C.C. TV footage to find out the real culprit who has changed the battery. But opposite party has not taken any action. In spite of notice there is no response from opposite party for which we feel that there is strength in the allegation made by the complainant for which we held that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service for not showing/verifying the CC TV footage, so also not responding to the notice of this Commission.

            The complainant has prayed to pay Rs.1,500/- towards new battery, service charge of Rs.300/-  outside garage expenses of Rs.300/- on that account for conveyance charges to show room and this Commission he has claimed Rs.1,000/-.

            The complainant has filed a single page hand written Odia petition enclosing the photo of battery from which we have satisfied that there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party for which he has not been shown the CC TV footage and opposite party did not appear before this Commission, for which we held that the opposite party is liable for unfair trade practice.

            Now coming to the question of compensation, the complainant has himself filed by the complaint and never appeared except the date of admission. We have gone through the records and considering the grievance and taking into consideration the entire fact and circumstances of the case we allow this complaint directing the opposite party to give a new battery or to pay Rs.1,500/- whichever is higher and acceptable to the complaint. We also award the cost of garage charges of Rs.600/- but towards the cost of litigation we only award Rs.400/- as the complainant has come once or twice to this Commission to file the case and for admission. With the aforesaid observation and direction the consumer complaint is dispose of.   

           

            Pronounced in the open Commission on this 30^th Sept., 2022.