DATE OF FILING : 20-01-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 18-02-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 30-06-2014.
Anup Kr. Ghosh,
son of Dashurathi Ghosh,
29/1/1, Panchanan Chatterjee Lane,
Howrah – 711101. ------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
Proprietor,
M/S. Rexine House,
½, Nityadhan Mukherjee Road,
Howrah – 711101.-------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
1. It is the specific case of the complainant, Anup Kr. Ghosh, that o.p., M/S. Rexine House, is demanding illegally an amount of Rs. 650/- for replacement of a vehicle battery even within the period of warranty.
2. Brief fact of the case is that complainant purchased one Amaron Pro-Bike Rider having no. 06 K100839-2.5 battery for Rs. 870/- on 24-05- 2010 from o.p. for which warranty was provided for 60 months. But after 30 months, the said battery went out of order and it was informed to o.p. on 17-10-2013 vide Annexure ‘A’. It is further stated by the complainant that for such replacement o.p. demands Rs. 650/- on pro-rata basis as per the terms and conditions provided by o.p. along with the warranty for the said battery. But according to the complainant, he is entitled to free replacement of the said defective battery. O.p. does not agree with him and no replacement was made by them. O.p. demands Rs. 650/- as pro-rata basis as the battery went out of order after 30 months. Had it been within first 30 months, o.p. would have supplied a new one as per terms and condition. So, being aggrieved , complainant files this instant petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) praying for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to replace the battery in question, to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs.
3. Notice was served. O.p. appeared and filed any written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest.
4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the written version of o.p. and noted its contents. In their written version, o.p. has taken the same stand as they told the complainant earlier. And o.p. supplied the warranty card on the date of purchase of the said battery. From the Annexure ‘B’ i.e., warranty card, of Pg. 2, the very first point states that for 60 months warranty, free replacement would be made if the battery becomes defective within 30 months and for the rest 30 months warranty would be applicable on pro-rata basis. That itself means that o.p. never provided any 60 months’ warranty of free replacement of the battery and it was very well within the knowledge of the complainant since the time of purchase of the battery . Had the battery gone out of order within first 30 months of warranty period, o.p. would have replaced it without any charge. But it went out of order within the 2nd 30 months of the warranty period when the complainant was required to pay the replacement charges on pro-rata basis and which is Rs. 650/-. Accordingly, we do not find any deficiency on the part of the o.p. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 24 of 2014 ( HDF 24 of 2014 ) be dismissed on contest against the o.p. without costs.
However, the complainant is at liberty to take the battery in question to o.p. and get the replacement on payment of Rs. 650/- to o.p.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
