Jharkhand

Bokaro

CC/10/2020

MD Noor - Complainant(s)

Versus

Okaya Power Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pradeep Kumar Jha

03 May 2023

ORDER

1. Complainant’s  case in brief is that he purchased 12 Volt Okaya battery from shop of O.P. No.2 on Rs. 12,800/- in exchange with old battery for Rs. 2500/- and paid Rs. 10,300/- to the O.P. No.2 vide invoice No. 52 dt. 17.07.2017. Further case is that said battery was having warranty for three years accordingly warranty card was provided but after 14 months from purchase trouble started with the battery which was serviced on complain on 21.09.2018 and later on. Further case is that inspite of repeated requests defect of the battery was not removed hence on 11.11.2019 legal notice was issued having no impact, hence this case has been filed with prayer to direct O.Ps. to replace the defective battery and to pay  Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost respectively.
2. As per W.S. of O.P. No.1 warranty period of the battery was expired much earlier sometime on 24.04.2019 because warranty was started on 24.10.2016 when battery was supplied to the dealer. Further reply is that on all times during inspection by the technician battery was found in good condition. Further reply is that as per terms and conditions of the warranty card jurisdiction of the case lies with the Delhi Court hence case is not maintainable at this place and all other allegations are denied.
3. As per W.S. of O.P. No.2 at the time of sale of the battery this O.P. was not the owner of the shop rather owner of the shop Badri Nath Shukla had died on 13.05.2021 hence it is wrong to say that complainant has purchased battery from this O.P. However, this O.P. is not liable for any defect in the battery rather manufacturer of the battery is liable to pay it. Further reply is that this O.P. has not sold the battery to the complainant nor he received any complain from the complainant hence he is not liable to replace the battery.
4. Point for consideration is that whether complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed or not?
5. On perusal of the record it appears that purchase of the battery by the complainant has not been denied by any one. So far defect related to battery is concerned no doubt there is complain by the complainant to the service centre of the company concerned but there is no any evidence or paper to show that service of the O.P. was  unsatisfactory. It is admitted by the complainant during argument that during pendency of the case complainant has sold out the battery concerned and has purchased new one after adjustment of the price of the old battery. On perusal of the warranty card of the battery concerned it shows that only 20% rebate was admissible to the complainant on return of the battery after 30 months from the date of purchase.  Since battery concerned has already been sold out by the complainant without permission/intimation of the Commission and he has not intimated about the price adjusted for old battery hence it is very much clear that there is no any evidence from the complainant to prove or establish that battery concerned was defective and it is liable to be replaced specially when battery concerned has already been sold out .
6. In light of above discussion we are of the view that complainant has failed to prove his case for grant of relief as prayed. Accordingly this case is being dismissed.