1. Alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant filed this case against the Opposite parties for replacement of battery ( Inverter) or refund the price value of the battery of Rs.13,500/-alongwith compensation and cost of litigation.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief fact of the case is that the complainant had purchased an Exide (Inverter) battery type No.FIMOIM1500,Serial No.A3E4C0252503E45 from the O.P.No.1 on 27.12.2015 for a consideration of Rs.13,500/- vide invoice No.757 dtd.27.12.2015.The warranty period of the aforesaid battery was 36 months from the date of purchase.After running for 1 year, the aforesaid battery did not function properly and did not hold the charge lasting. So the complainant complained before the O.P.No3/Authorized Service center and checked the battery and after checking the O.PNo.3 opined that the battery did not hold charging.After receiving complaint the O.P sent a mechanic who did not rectify the defect in the battery. After some days the O.PNo.1 received the battery from the complainant and sent it to the O.PNo.3 for rectification of defects of the battery.The O.Ps did not refund his battery. The complainant sent a pleader notice to the O.PNo.1 and 2 on 10.5.2017 for refund of battery. The O.Ps did not take any steps for refund of the battery. Aggrieved by deficiency of service of the O.P.s the complainant filed this case before this forum for proper redressal.
3. Being noticed the O.P NO.1 appeared and filed his counter.The O.P.No.2 and 3 did not appear in the aforesaid case and became set ex-parte.In his counter the O.P.No.1 stated that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law. The complainant has no locustandi to file this case against the O.P.No.1 He admits that, he had sold the Exide battery to the complainant for a consideration of Rs.13,500/- vide invoice NO.757 dtd.27.12.2015.After receiving the complaint from the complainant he informed the matter before the O.PNo.3.It is the duty of the No.2 and 3 to replace the battery in case of defective. The matter for consideration of the case is whether the complainant is a consumer under the O.P in view of C.PAct and whether any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice have been caused to the complainant by the O.Ps by not providing proper service to the complainant. The O.P.No.2 and 3 though received notice from this forum could not appear in the case and became set ex-parte.The nonappearance of the O.P.No.2 and 3 in this case presume that they have nothing to raise objection on the complaint made by the complainant.
4. Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant, documents filed by him and submission made by the O.P.NO.1 we allow the case of the complainant in part and direct the O.P.No.2 to replace the battery (Inverter) by a new one along with Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand) only towards compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of the this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take steps against the O.P.No.2 for realization of awarded amount. The case against O.P.No.1 and 3 is dismissed without cost.This case is disposed of accordingly.
Order pronounced in the open court under the seal and signature of the forum this the day of 14th day of November, 2017.
Member, Member, President,
Dist.Consuerm Forum, Boudh.Dist. Consumer Forum, Boudh.Dist. Consumer Forum, Boudh.
