Delhi

West Delhi

CC/14/833

Sugandha Rai - Complainant(s)

Versus

Papu Safi - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, Janak Puri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                             Date of institution   :  15.12.2014.

      C. Case. No.833/14                                                                          Date of order             :   10 .08.16

In the matter of :-

      Mrs. Sugandha Rai

D/o Sada Nand Rai

     H.No. 58, Gali No. 10,

                Nagli Vihar, Najafgarh

                Delhi-110043                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Complainant

  

            Vs.

1.     Papu Safi

         Prop of Active Inverter & Battery

         Shop No. 7, Vipin Garden

         Near Metro Pillar No. 800,

               Uttam Nagar, N.Delhi-59.                                                                                                                                                                                     OP1

2.     JPM Group

         Through

         Prop/Director

        G1-48, GT Karnal Road,

        Industrial Area, New Delhi-110033                  

                                                                                                                  OP 2

 

                                          ORDER                                                                     

R.S.BAGRI (President)

                     Briefly  the facts necessary for the disposal of the present complaint are that Mrs. Sugandha Rai.  Complainant on 1.9.2014

Purchased one JPM Battery from Papu Safi OP1 for sale consideration

                                                          -2-

of Rs.3000/- with warranty of six months.  The battery became faulty within few days.  She visited the opposite party no.1 for repair and in alternative for replacement/change of the battery.  The OP1 refused to repair and replace the battery. She made telephonically call on 100 number.  The OP1 Prem Raj gave in writing that he will replace the battery within 2-3 days. But after two days when she visited OP1 he refused to repair and replace the battery. 

                  Hence the present complaint for direction to OP1 being dealer and OP2 being manufacturer to pay cost of the battery, Rs.75000/- for compensation on account of loss and mental harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

                   Notices of the complaint were sent to the opposite parties.  The OP1 appeared and filed reply admitting that complainant purchased the battery from him but he replaced the battery which also became faulty within few days.  Therefore, he is not  liable to pay any compensation. Whereas OP2 being manufacturer is liable to pay the compensation. 

                  None appeared on behalf of OP2 despite service.  Therefore, OP2 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 17.3.2016.  Later on OP1 also did not appear, therefore, he was also proceeded ex-parte  vide order dated 17.3.2016.

                  The complainant in support of her complaint has filed affidavit dated 18.5.2015 narrating the facts of the complaint.  She also relied upon invoice No.017 dated1.9.2014, warranty card No. 022053 dated 1.9.14, writing of OP1 dated 2.11.14  and filed service reports dated 8.12.14 and 15.12.14.  From the perusal of documents

                                                     -3-

 

relied upon by complainant it reveals that the complainant on 1.9.14 purchased JPM Battery from OP1 for sale consideration of Rs.3000/- with warranty of six months. The  battery became faulty within warranty.  On 2.11.14 the OP1 promised to replace the battery.  On 8.12.14 surveyor of OP2 inspected the battery and same was found faulty.

                  We have heard the  complainant  and have gone through the record.  The version of the complainant has remained unrebutted and unchallenged.  So, there is no reason to disbelieve the same. From the unrebutted and unchallenged evidence the complainant succeeded to prove that  on 1.9.14 she purchased the battery from OP1 manufactured by OP2 for sale consideration of Rs.3000/- with warranty of six months. The battery became faulty within warranty. But the opposite party failed to repair and replace the battery. She has suffered loss of the battery.  She has been  also deprived of use of the battery. Therefore, there is  negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPS. Hence, OPS are directed to pay Rs.3000/, the cost of the battery with interest @9% from filing of the complaint till realization of the amount and pay compensation of Rs.2000/- on account of pain and agony suffered by complainant and litigation expenses. They are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount.

 

Pronounced on 10.8. 2016

 

 

 

•  4   -

 

1.   Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
2.   Compliance of the order be made within30 days after receipt

Of the order.

 

Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                               (URMILA GUPTA)                   ( R.S.  BAGRI )

  MEMBER                                            MEMBER                               PRESIDENT