O R D E R
D.R. TAMTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed present complaint against O.P under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that complainant had purchased a Exide battery manufactured by the OP-2 in the total sum of Rs.3,550/- vide retail invoice No.2040 on 1.12.2011. It is alleged that at the time of sale of the said Exide battery, OP-1 had assured the complainant that he will get free service whenever, wherever car battery is in trouble, just dial the Bat mobile number and they will be right there to bring complainant’s care back to life between 7 a.m. to 12 midnight as required generally in service of the Exide battery. It is alleged that OP-1 brought some Exide batteries at the complainant’s premise and handed over the subject mentioned battery to the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant brought the subject mentioned Exide battery and put to use in complainant’s Hyundai Santro GLS the same was installed by the employee of OP-1 which is being used by the complainant in his day to day domestic purpose. It is alleged that the battery worked only for a short period and started creating trouble every now then proving it to be a faulty battery. It is alleged that on April 2012 complainant reported to OP-1, proprietor of OP-1 advised to purchase new battery as subject mentioned batter is on the verge of death. It is alleged that the complainant asked to solemnize the matter free of cost as the said battery is under the warranty period and as per the warranty booklet provided to the complainant of Exide Co. shows under the head “warranty periods” that free replacement of battery between 0 to 18 months. It is alleged that the complainant had served a legal notice on 17.12.2013 which was duly served upon both the OPs and OP-1 is not at all interested to deal with the complainant and OP-2 on 28.12.2013 had contacted the complainant through telephone and requested for battery visit. It is alleged that on the same day, their executive alongwith engineer had inspected the subject mentioned battery and same was reported as “battery weak”. It is alleged that employee of the OP-2 had promised to replace the battery with new one and compensated the complainant in according to the above referred legal notice within a week but due their callous and careless attitude of OP-2 did not perform their promise. It is alleged that the complainant further served a reminder on 5.2.2014 to OP-2 to perform their part as promised by their employee but all in vain. It is alleged that the cause of action arose on various dates as on 1.12.2011 when the OP-1 sold the defective battery manufactured by OP-2 and thereafter April 2013 when the employee of OP-2 visited the complainant, and still continuing one when the complainant apprised to the OPs all the facts explained for these act attract the criminal and civil action against them. On these facts complainant prays that O.P be directed to replace the defective battery with new good quality battery, apart from cost and compensation as claimed.
2. Notice was sent to O.P which was duly served, however none appeared on behalf of the O.P, therefore it was proceeded with ex-parte. The complainant has filed his affidavit in evidence testifying all the facts as alleged in the complaint.
3. We have carefully gone through the record of the case and have heard submission of Ld. Counsel of the complainant. The purchase of the battery by the complainant from the OP-1 is not disputed. Inspite of service of notice to the OPs they have not appeared, therefore, we have no option but to accept what the complainant has alleged. The complainant has alleged that the battery started giving trouble within 16 months but he has not submitted any evidence in this regard. The evidence is regarding service of notice to the OPs by courier post sent on 17.12.2013 and jobsheet issued by the Op dated 28.12.2013. As per warranty submitted by the complainant alongwith complaint his case falls within the category of 25-27 months against which new battery at 35% discount on prevailing maximum retail price is applicable. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that ends of justice will be met if the OPs are directed to give the complainant new battery against the old battery at 35% discount on prevailing maximum retail price. Apart from this the OPs are also directed to jointly and severally pay Rs.1000/- as cost and compensation to the complainant. The order shall be complied within 30 day of receipt of this order.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties by Registered post and thereafter the file be consigned to record room.
Announced this 28th day of February, 2015.
( BABU LAL ) ( D.R. TAMTA) ( SHAHINA)
President Member Member
