RESERVED

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Appeal No.290 of 2006

Piyush Singh s/o Sri Tribhuvan Narain Singh,

Gram Gukulpur, Post: Govraha,

District: Varanasi.                                            ...Appellant.

Versus

1- Om Allied Battery Company,

    G.T. Road, Gole Gaddha, Varanasi.

2- General Manager, Exide Industries Ltd.,

    Exide House, Chaurangi Road,

    Calcutta.                                                 …Respondents.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri A.K. Bose, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Smt. Bal Kumari, Member.

Sri A.K. Misra for the appellant.

Date    4.8.2015

ORDER

Sri A.K. Bose,  Member- The appeal was taken up for hearing on the point of admission on 20.5.2012. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the appellant on the point of admission.

From perusal of the judgment and order dated 16.12.2005, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Varanasi in complaint case No.12 of 2003, it transpires that the appellant/complainant Piyush Singh purchased one Exide Battery Type EM 80, Sl. No.12260 on 19.6.2002 for Rs.3,000.00. It has been alleged that the battery developed some problems within 2-3 months and, therefore, he took the battery to the respondent/supplier M/s Om Allied Battery Company for redressal of his grievances. He failed to change the battery or remove the defects. Aggrieved by this, complaint case No.12 of 2003 was filed before the Forum below for redressal of his grievances on ground of

(2)

deficiency in service. The complaint was dismissed on 16.12.2005 on the ground that the complainant/appellant had failed to produce original warranty card alongwith defective battery which was a condition precedent and, therefore, it was not possible for the respondents to remove the defects as Condition No.2 of the Warranty was that "the warranty card alongwith original invoice must accompany all claims arising within the warranty period."  Without warranty card, it was not possible for the respondents to determine the actual period of warranty as different period had been provided for different type of batteries. The judgment is well reasoned. It is based on facts, circumstances and evidence on record and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it. The respondents have filed photocopy of the warranty which was given to the appellant at the time of sale of the battery. The claim of the appellant/complainant could not be attended or satisfied as he failed to produce the original warranty card and it was not possible for the respondents to provide him any relief in the absence of the same. The Consumer and Service Provider relationship is always based on contract; and in the instant matter, there was a breach of the same on the part of the appellant/ complainant. There is no irregularity or illegality in the judgment and, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in it.

Besides this, the impugned judgment was delivered on 16.12.2005. Certified copy of the same was provided to the appellant on 23.12.2005 whereas the appeal was filed

(3)

on 6.2.2006. Thus, it is barred by limitation also. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the admission stage.

Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. Certified copy of the judgment be provided to the parties in accordance with rules.

         (A.K. Bose)                               (Bal Kumari)

    Presiding Member                             Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.4