Presented by Miss R. Pattnayak, President .
The case of the Complainant is that he purchased one Microtech Invertor and two Exide Invertor IN 1500 plus battery from Opposite Party No.1(one), Proprietor, M/s Sharma Enterprises, At- Bhatli Chowk, N.H.6 (six), At/Po/Dist. Bargarh paying a considerable high amount of Rs.21,150/-(Rupees twenty one thousand one hundred fifty)only on Dt.30/10/2009 with proper bill bearing No. 076 Dt.03/03/2011. The Complainant found that one of the battery having Mft-code-3J9, serial No. 23012, Exide SAP code- 3J9W2235643 J9 shown trouble and did not functioned properly for which he approached the dealer and deposited the same vide bill No. 1095 Dt.03/03/2011 before the Opposite Party No.1(one) to set the problem taken care off as it was within the warranty period and free replacement period. The dealer after checking the same informed him that as the free replacement period is in force, he will sent it to the company and within 7(seven) to 15(fifteen) days he will handover a new battery to him but found no help.
After failure of the grievance not been settled by the proper authorities the Complainant filed this case with a claim of Rs.21,150/-(Rupees twenty one thousand one hundred fifty)only along with Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand)only as compensation for suffering and litigation cost.
The Complainant has filed the following documents to prove his case.
Original warranty booklet bearing No. 832742 issued by Sharma Enterprises, on Dt.30/10/2009.
Xerox copy of the original receipt bearing No. 076 Dt.30/10/2009 issued by Opposite Party No.1(one).
Xerox copy of deposit slip bearing serial No. 1095 Dt.03/03/2011.
Upon Notices being served, the Opposite Parties appeared and have filed their respective version.
In his version as well as in the oral argument the Opposite Party No.1(one) while denying all the allegations raised by the Complainant have admitted about the purchase of the invertor and two exide battery as well as deposit of one of the battery before him alleging some trouble within warranty period. He has further submitted that, he has performed all his duty without rendering any deficiency of service towards that Complainant, because he has no role to play. He has only to receive the battery from the Complainant and to send the same to the Company like a post office. It is the duty and look out of the company to act upon the Complainant's allegation as the alleged product manufactured by it(company).
Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version as well as in the oral agrument while denying all the allegations raised by the Complainant have admitted that on Dt.17/02/2011, he received the battery in question from the Opposite Party No.1(one) but in discharged condition which is beyond the warranty period. The Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version has shifted the responsibility to the Opposite Party No.1(one) that the batteries were manufactured by him is being purchased by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to sell the same to their own customer.
Point to decide:-
Whether any deficiency of service occurred ?
And
To what compensation, the Complainant is entitled for the problem ?
On careful consideration of the complaint petition, version of Opposite Parties and after hearing the Parties, we found that purchase of the invertor and two exide batteries are admitted by the the both Parties i.e. Opposite Party No.1(one) and No.2(two) which is also proved further through the documentary evidence annexed in the case record. It is also found that the problem arised in one of the battery is within the warranty period. Opposite Parties in their version also accepted the occurring problem with one of the battery and sending of one of the battery to the servicing centre of Sambalpur. Thus, the facts admitted need not be proved again. No documents also shown by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant has mishandling the battery so that it is defective. The Complainant also admitted that the invertor and one of the battery are in OK condition so the allegation is regarding one of the battery only. During argument also Opposite Party No.1(one) has submitted that if the company i.e. Opposite Party No.2(two) will give direction, then Opposite Party No.1(one) will definitely replace. After perusal of the warranty book let, it is found that the defect occurred in the said battery which the Complainant made aware to the Opposite Parties after seventeen months of its purchase which covers warranty period and there in also for free replacement, which was not replaced or rectified by the Opposite Parties in due course of time amounts to utter deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties to the Customer.
Due to these act and attitude of the Opposite Parties and intentional delay to replace or rectify the defect, the Complainant has not only suffered mentally but also got financial loss and physical harassment and the purpose of purchasing of the invertor by him has also been frustrated.
Hence, the Opposite Parties are negligent in duties and deficient in providing proper service to the customer. In this circumstance the complaint petition is allowed.
- O R D E R -
The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally to replace one of the battery of same made and model i.e. Exide Inventor IN 1500 plus battery or in alternative refund the present market price/value of the above mentioned battery to the Complainant along with Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand)only towards compensation and litigation expenses, within thirty days from the date of Order , failing which the awarded amount shall carry @12% (twelve percent) interest per annum till the date of actual payment.
The Complaint is allowed and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree, (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak) ( Smt. Anjali Behera) (Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash)
P r e s i d e n t. M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
