1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased two Exide Batteries from OP.1 for use in his vehicle vide Bill No.3088 dt.18.8.14 for a sum of Rs.10, 000/- and the OP.1 did not handover the warranty documents but assured that the batteries bear 18 months guarantee plus another 18 months of warranty.  It is submitted that one battery bearing Sl. No.A2E4D020607 MF Code 2E4 did not work properly and became dead for which the complainant contacted OP.1 on 27.1.2016 who advised the complainant to come on 29.1.16 and due to non availability of OP.1, the complainant finally met him on 01.2.16 and  demanded a new battery.  It is further submitted that as per advice of OP.1, the complainant registered a complaint with OP.2 on 02.2.16 and OP.2 inspected the battery and asked for warranty documents.  As the complainant could not produce the warranty documents citing the reason that OP.1 has not issued such documents, the OP.2 expressed its inability to replace the battery and demanded Rs.3000/- towards repair.  Thus alleging deficiency in service and defect in goods he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the alleged battery with a new one and to pay Rs.88, 000/- towards compensation and costs to the complainant.

2.                     On being served, the Ops neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner and hence remained ex-parte.  As such the matter was heard from the A/R for the complainant and posted for orders on merit basing upon the materials available on record.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case and we also perused the said documents.

4.                     In this case the complainant stated that he purchased two Exide Batteries for his vehicle from OP.1 on 18.8.14.  In support of his averment the complainant has filed copy of Bill vide No.3088 dt.18.8.14 for Rs.10, 000/- issued by OP.1 which clearly proves that the alleged batteries have been purchased by the complainant from OP.1.  The case of the complainant is that one of the above batteries vide Sl. No.A2E4D020607, MF Code 2E4 did not function properly and became dead within warranty period for which he contacted OP.1 and also lodged complaint with OP.2 but the OP.2 denied replacement of the battery on 02.2.16 for want of warranty documents.  The complainant has submitted that during sale, the OP.1 has not handed over the warranty documents but only assured 18 months guarantee and 18 months warranty on the battery.

5.                     The OP.1 in spite of valid notice did not prefer to defend himself in this case in any manner.  Hence the allegations of the complainant that OP.1 did not handover guarantee and warranty documents during sale of batteries remained unchallenged, so also the period of guarantee and warranty as alleged by the complainant.  In absence of counter and participation of OP.1 in this proceeding it can be concluded that the OP.1 has sold the batteries without handing over the said documents and the batteries bear 18 months of guarantee plus 18 months of warranty and apparently one of the batteries became dead within 18 months of its purchase.  In our opinion, non supply of guarantee and warranty card to the complainant by OP.1 at the time of sale transaction amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of OP.1.

6.                     It is also seen that the OP.2 has inspected the battery in question on 02.2.16 and on perusal of the report dt. 02.02.16 of OP.2 it was ascertained that the Service Engineer of OP.2 is not sure about the cause of defect which rendered the battery to dead position.  The OP.2 also remained absent in this proceeding on being duly served in order to substantiate the comments mentioned in their report dt.02.02.16.  Without convincing comments on the report, the OP.2 cannot deny replacement of defective battery during warranty period.  Hence none replacement of defective battery with new one amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP.2 as it did not work during guarantee and warranty period.

7.                     In the above facts and circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the battery sold to the complainant by OP.1 was having manufacturing defect which did not function even if during warranty period and hence the complainant is entitled for refund of the cost of one battery i.e. Rs.5000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of defect i.e. 28.1.2016.  In the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant any compensation in favour of the complainant as asked for except Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation.  The Ops 1 & 2 are liable to compensate the complainant.

8.                     Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the Ops 1 & 2 being jointly and severally liable are directed to refund Rs.5000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 28.1.2016 and to pay Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)