| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No.184 of 10.5.2016 Decided on: 22.6.2017 Jagwinder Singh son of Sh.Gurmail Singh, resident of Suniyar Basti, Patran, Tehsil Patran,District Patiala. …………...Complainant Consumer Complaint No.185 of 10.5.2016 Decided on: 22.6.2017 Harinder Sharma son of Sh.Inderjit Sharma, resident of Dashmesh Nagar, Patran, Tehsil Patran,District Patiala. …………...Complainant Consumer Complaint No.186 of 10.5.2016 Decided on: 22.6.2017 Yashpal Singh alias Palli son of Sh.Surja Singh, resident of Suniyar Basti, Patran, Tehsil Patran,District Patiala. …………...Complainant Consumer Complaint No.187 of 10.5.2016 Decided on: 22.6.2017 Dhani Ram son of Sh.Hardev Ram, resident of village Hamjhari Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Consumer Complaint No.188 of 10.5.2016 Decided on: 22.6.2017 Talwinder Singh Khalsa son of Sh. Pala Singh , resident of Dashmesh Nagar, Patran, Tehsil Patran,District Patiala. …………...Complainant Consumer Complaint No.189 of 10.5.2016 Decided on: 22.6.2017 Bhupinder Sharma son of Sh.Dhani Ram, resident of village Hamjhari Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Consumer Complaint No.190 of 10.5.2016 Decided on: 22.6.2017 Baljinder Sharma son of Sh.Ram Lal, resident of village Hamjhari , Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Consumer Complaint No.191 of 10.5.2016 Decided on: 22.6.2017 Parminder Singh son of Sh.Jaswant Singh, resident of near Ravidas Mandir, Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Consumer Complaint No.192 of 10.5.2016 Decided on: 22.6.2017 Hakam Singh son of Sh.Baldev Singh, resident of Chanagara, P.O.Hariyau, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Consumer Complaint No.193 of 10.5.2016 Decided on: 22.6.2017 Jagwinder Singh son of Sh.Gurmail Singh, resident of Suniyar Basti, Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus - Panesar Auto Electric Works, Nirwana Road, Patran, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala, through its Proprietor/Partner.
- Sri Ganesha Enterprises, SCF 383, Motor Market, Manimajra (Chandigarh), through its partner Rajiv Singla.
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neena Sandhu, President Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Dhiraj Puri,Advocate,counsel for complainant. Sh.Gaurav Bansal, Advocate, counsel for opposite party No.1 Opposite party No.2 ex-parte. ORDER SMT.NEENA SANDHU, PRESIDENT - By this order we propose to dispose of the above noted complaints because the questions of facts and law involved in the ten complaints, except minor variations, are the same. Arguments were heard in common, in the above said cases.
All the aforesaid complainants have been filed by the complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the O.Ps.) praying for the following reliefs:- - To replace the defective battery with new one or to refund the cost of the battery alongwith interest @18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization
- To pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment
- To pay Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses
- First of all, coming to the facts of complaint No.CC/16/184 dated 10.5.2016 titled as Jagwinder Singh Vs. Panesar Auto Electric Works, it is alleged by the complainant that he had purchased Hi-Ca Calcium Battery for an amount of Rs.5700/- vide bill No.163 dated 7.6.2014, from OP No.1 with the warranty of two years in case any fault occurred due to poor workmanship or manufacturing defect in the same. It is averred that the battery became dead only within the period of 10 months of its use.He approached OP no.1 for replacing or removing the defect. The engineer of OP no.1 checked the battery and told that the same could not be repaired and assured the complainant to collect the new battery after 15 days. Thereafter, the complainant approached and requested OP no.1 for a number of times but OP no.1 every time, put off the matter on one pretext or the other.In the last week of February,2016, the complainant again approached and requested OP no.1 for handing over the new batteries .At that time OP no.1 told him that it has already sent the batteries to Op no.2 for replacement but OP no.2 flatly refused to replace the defective batteries with new one. A legal notice dated 4.3.2016 was got served upon the OPs for the replacement of the battery or to refund the cost of the same alongwith interest, but despite the receipt of the legal notice, the OPs failed to pay any heed to his request. It is averred that the act of OPs amounts to deficiency of service which caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint.
- On being put to notice,Op no.1 appeared through counsel and filed the written version whereas OP no.2 failed to come present despite service and was accordingly proceeded against exparte.
- In the written version filed by OP no.1, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the battery on 7.10.2014. It is also admitted that the complainant approached it, for the removal of the defects in the battery. The receipt of the legal notice is stated to be matter of record. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, prayer has been made to dismiss the complaint.
- In complaint No.CC/16/185 of 10.5.2016 titled as Harinder Sharma Vs. Panesar Auto Electric Works , it is suffice to note that the complainant had purchased the Hi Ca calcium battery for his domestic use, for an amount of Rs.3150/- vide bill no.167 dated 27.9.2014, with the warranty of two years, in case any fault occurred due to poor workmanship or manufacturing defect in the same. The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP No.1 in the previous complaint i.e. CC No.184 of 10.5.2016 remain the same in this case also.
- In complaint No.CC/16/186 of 10.5.2016 titled as Yashpal Singh Vs. Panesar Auto Electric Works , it is suffice to note that the complainant had purchased the Hi Ca calcium battery for his domestic use, for an amount of Rs.4950/- vide bill no.181 dated 19.10.2014, with the warranty of 18 months, in case any fault occurred due to poor workmanship or manufacturing defect in the same. The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP No.1 in the previous complaint i.e. CC No.184 of 10.5.2016 remain the same in this case also.
- In complaint No.CC/16/187 of 10.5.2016 titled as Dhani Ram Vs. Panesar Auto Electric Works , it is suffice to note that the complainant had purchased the Hi Ca calcium battery for his domestic use, for an amount of Rs.5050/- vide bill no.166 dated 26.9.2014, with the warranty of 18 months, in case any fault occurred due to poor workmanship or manufacturing defect in the same. The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP No.1 in the previous complaint i.e. CC No.184 of 10.5.2016 remain the same in this case also.
- In complaint No.CC/16/188 of 10.5.2016 titled as Talwinder Singh Khalsa Vs. Panesar Auto Electric Works , it is suffice to note that the complainant had purchased the Hi Ca calcium battery for his domestic use, for an amount of Rs.5900/- vide bill no.176 dated 7.10.2014, with the warranty of 18 months, in case any fault occurred due to poor workmanship or manufacturing defect in the same. The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP No.1 in the previous complaint i.e. CC No.184 of 10.5.2016 remain the same in this case also.
- In complaint No.CC/16/189 of 10.5.2016 titled as Bhupinder Sharma Vs. Panesar Auto Electric Works , it is suffice to note that the complainant had purchased the Hi Ca calcium battery for his domestic use, for an amount of Rs.5050/- vide bill no.165 dated 21.9.2014, with the warranty of 18 months, in case any fault occurred due to poor workmanship or manufacturing defect in the same. The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP No.1 in the previous complaint i.e. CC No.184 of 10.5.2016 remain the same in this case also.
- In complaint No.CC/16/190 of 10.5.2016 titled as Baljinder Sharma Vs. Panesar Auto Electric Works , it is suffice to note that the complainant had purchased the Hi Ca calcium battery for his domestic use, for an amount of Rs.4950/- vide bill no.180 dated 16.10.2014, with the warranty of 18 months, in case any fault occurred due to poor workmanship or manufacturing defect in the same. The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP No.1 in the previous complaint i.e. CC No.184 of 10.5.2016 remain the same in this case also.
- In complaint No.CC/16/191 of 10.5.2016 titled as Parminder Vs. Panesar Auto Electric Works , it is suffice to note that the complainant had purchased two Hi Ca calcium batteries for his domestic use, for an amount of Rs.5900/-each vide bill no.172 dated 3.10.2014, with the warranty of 18 months, in case of any fault occurred due to poor workmanship or manufacturing defect in the same. The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP No.1 in the previous complaint i.e. CC No.184 of 10.5.2016 remain the same in this case also.
- In complaint No.CC/16/192 of 10.5.2016 titled as Hakam Singh Vs. Panesar Auto Electric Works , it is suffice to note that the complainant had purchased Hi Ca calcium battery for his domestic use, for an amount of Rs.4950/- vide bill no.182 dated 20.10.2014, with the warranty of 18 months, in case any fault occurred due to poor workmanship or manufacturing defect in the same.The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP No.1 in the previous complaint i.e. CC No.184 of 10.5.2016 remain the same in this case also.
- In complaint No.CC/16/193 of 10.5.2016 titled as Jagwinder Singh Vs. Panesar Auto Electric Works , it is suffice to note that the complainant had purchased two Hi Ca calcium batteries for his domestic use, for an amount of Rs.11800/-(Rs.5900/-each battery) vide bill no.177 dated 11.10.2014, with the warranty of 18 months, in case any fault occurred due to poor workmanship or manufacturing defect in the same. The other facts of the complaint and the written version filed by the OP No.1 in the previous complaint i.e. CC No.184 of 10.5.2016 remain the same in this case also.
- On being called to do so, the ld. counsel for the complainant, in complaint No.CC/16/184 titled as Jagwinder Singh Vs. Panesar Auto Elec. Works has tendered in evidence affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 closed the evidence.
- On the other hand on behalf of the op No.1, it’s learned counsel tendered in evidence sworn affidavit of Sh.Dalbir Singh, Prop. of Panesar Auto Electric Works and closed its evidence.
- Similar evidence has been lead by the parties in all other abovementioned complaints. Even the number of the exhibits are the same.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of all the cases, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has submitted that the battery in question was having warranty of two years. It had become dead within 10 months of its purchase. As the battery was in warranty, he handed over the same to OP no.1 and requested it either to set it right by repair or to replace the same. The OP no.1 after checking the battery, told him that it could not be repaired and assured him to collect the new battery after 15 days. After passing of 15 days, he went to collect the new battery, the OP no.1, told him that it had sent the defective battery to OP no.2 for its replacement, but OP no.2 refused to replace the same. Since the battery in question got defective within warranty period, therefore, it was the bounded duty of the OPs to replace the defective battery with the new one. By not replacing the defective battery with the new one, the Ops committed deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, OPs may kindly be directed to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to him.
- The ld. counsel for Op no.1 vehemently argued that the battery in question was got defective within the warranty, as such the OP no.2 being manufacturer is liable to replace the same with the new one or to refund the price thereof. He further argued that on receipt of the defective battery from the complainant, it duly sent the same to the manufacturer for its replacement and as such it had performed its duty and cannot be said to be deficient in providing services and prayed that complaint qua it may kindly be dismissed.
- From the bill,Ex.C1,it is evident that on 7.6.2014, the complainant purchased the battery in question from OP no.1 for a sum of Rs.5700/- having warranty of two years. As per complainant, the battery in question got defective within 10 months of its purchase. This fact has fairly been admitted by OP no.1. Since the battery in question got defective within warranty , therefore, the OP no.2 being manufacturer was liable to replace the same but by refusing to replace the battery in question, it has committed deficiency in service. Therefore, we hold that OP no.2 is liable to replace the defective battery with the new one. In case, it is unable to provide the new battery to the complainant then it must refund the price of the battery in question. It is also liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him alongwith litigation expenses. Since OP no.1 has already performed its duty by sending the defective battery to OP no.2 for replacement, therefore, it cannot be said to be deficient in providing the service and complaint qua it is liable to be dismissed.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we dismiss the complaint against OP no.1 and allow the same against OP no.2.The OP no.2 is directed in the following manner:
- To replace the battery in question. If it is unable to provide the new battery, then refund the cost of the battery to the complainant.
- To pay Rs.2500/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to the complainant
- To pay Rs.2000/-as cost of litigation expenses.
OP no.2 is further directed to comply the order within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order, be placed on the files of above mentioned other nine consumer complaints also. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the record room. ANNOUNCED DATED:22.6.2017 NEENA SANDHU PRESIDENT NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER | |
