F I N A L   O R D E R

The complainant filed this case with the prayer for an award with a direction to the O.Ps. to return back the repaired battery, to pay Rs.45,000/- as loss of business and EMI of Bank for three months, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.

The complainant case in brief is that the complainant had purchased one TATA ACE Truck from O.P. No.1 with the financial assistance of United Bank of India, where monthly installment was fixed Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to starting problem of the said vehicle the complainant placed the vehicle to the garage of O.P. No.2 and after inspecting the vehicle the O.P. No.2 told that the problem creates from Battery and referred the complainant to contact with O.P. No.3. Accordingly, the complainant went to the shop of O.P. No.3 and they inspected the Battery on 21.01.14 and told that they will return the Battery after fit and repaired within a week. On several times the complainant knocked the door of the O.P. No.3 but the O.P. No.3 did not pay heed, then the complainant sent legal notice to the O.P. Nos.1 to 3 but no reply had reached from their end. Finding no way the complainant appeared before this Forum.

O.P. No.1 did not contest the case in spite of service of notice upon him. So the case is heard ex-parte against O.P. No.1.

O.P. No.2 contested the case by filing W.V., while stating inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable, it is fact that the complainant came before the O.P. No.2 with the vehicle and after examination of vehicle, this O.P. declared that the problem creates from Battery and issued a report with opinion and also advised the complainant to meet with O.P. No.3 and pray to dismiss the complaint with heavy cost.

O.P. No.3 also contested the case by filing W.V. while stating inter alia denying the other statements of the complainant except statement of receiving the disputed battery, this O.P. had/ has only retail outlet from TATA GY Battery, not for settle any dispute/ repair or replace any battery, the complainant never purchased any battery from this O.P., disputed battery was sent to the company authorized Service Centre at Malda who examined and send the report that battery in question is on OK condition, O.P. always ready to return back the disputed battery and pray to dismiss the complainant with cost.

The complainant to prove his case has submitted memo of evidence, oral evidence and photocopies of documents i.e. R.C., Chalan, acknowledgement of receipt of legal notice, warranty card of battery and inspection report from Battery Service Centre etc.

To prove its case the O.P. No.2 has only files W.V. but did not adduce any evidence or produce any documents.

To establish its defense the O.P. No.3 has submitted W.V. Adduced oral evidence, memo of evidence & photocopies of some documents.

We carefully perused the complaint petition, W.V., evidences, documents and considered argument advanced by the parties.

In this case we find from the complaint and evidence that the vehicle in question of the complainant was found starting problem and the complainant had placed the vehicle to O.P. No.2 on 21.01.14, who was the company authorised service centre and after examination of the vehicle, O.P. No.2 declared that the starting problem arose from battery and as alleged this O.P. referred to the complainant to O.P. No.3, Bengal Lube to solve the problem. Though the O.P. No.3 received the disputed Battery, but did not deliver the same, as such the complainant suffered loss for three months. O.P. No.3 stated in the W.V. and its evidence that the O.P. No.3 is a retail outlet shop of TATA GY Battery but not able to settle any dispute, repair or replace any Battery. Moreover, the complainant did not purchase the disputed Battery from O.P. No.3.

The O.P. No.3 expressed his view that he has no capacity to repair or replace the battery as his shop is only retail outlet, Malda Battery Centre has the authority to repair, replace etc. As the complainant was familiar with O.P. No.3 and on the request of complainant, O.P. No.3 sent the disputed Battery on 22.01.14 to Malda Battery Centre, who was the Company Authorized Service Centre. On behalf of complainant, O.P. No.3 on several occasion knocked over telephone to the Malda Battery Centre and one day came to learn that due to non availability of service engineer the Battery in question could not be examined and it will take time. Then the O.P. No.3 advised the complainant to contact with Malda Service Centre but the complainant did not do so. Lastly on 08.05.14 Service Engineer of Malda Battery Centre examined the battery and comments in the expert report, that the “Battery is in OK Condition” and they returned the same to O.P. No.3. The O.P. No.3 after receiving the Battery, informed the complainant over telephone to receive back the Battery but the complainant refused to take delivery rather he claimed for replacement of new Battery. O.P. No.2 has also stated in his W.V., that the O.P. No.2 after examining the vehicle issued examination report, advised for proper repairing of Battery and the complainant himself directly contacted with the O.P. No.3 and this O.P. has no role to play regarding the disputed Battery as such this O.P. has no deficiency in service. The complainant deposed as P.W.1 and admitted that he purchased the Battery in question from the shop name and style “TATA Green” and also admitted that in the guarantee card there is specifically mentioned the names and address of Authorized Service Centre, in which there is not mentioned the name “Bengal Lube” i.e. the retail shop of O.P. No.3. From this fact it is clear that O.P. No.3 was not the Authorize Service Centre of the disputed Battery in question. It reveals from the photocopy of warranty policy of “Tata Green Battery”, vide battery manufacturing code/ serial No. 1310K20082 dated 15.08.13 issued in favour of complainant as a customer, where specifically mentioned the names address of Battery Service Station and in the overleaf of the warranty card mentioned the terms and conditions of warrantee wherein Column No.3 stipulated that “In the event of any complaint, the battery shall be returned to the authorized Company Distributer/ Dealer/ Company’s  Service Location”. It is the primary duty of a customer to follow the warranty instructions for getting service there from.

In the discussions here in above it appears that the complainant being a customer did not follow the rule of the Battery Company and being a customer he cannot blamed others for his latches, negligence and cannot shift his burden to others.

In view of the discussions we are of opinion that the complainant is not able to prove his case. O.P. Nos. 1, 2 & 3 had no negligence or deficiency in service and none of these O.Ps. were/ are Service Provider.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

Thus the complaint case fails.

That the complaint case being No. CC - 66/2014 is dismissed on contest against O.P. Nos.2 & 3 and ex-parte against O.P. No.1 without cost.

Copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.