DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 256/2020

Date of Institution: 24.11.2020

Judgment Reserved on: 18.01.2024

Judgment Passed on: 18.01.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment, the Commission shall dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in selling defective car battery to the complainant.
2. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one battery for an amount 14,800/- on 03.01.2018 which was having warranty for 42 months but this battery was giving certain problems from the very beginning but it became out of order in February 2020 and complaint was made to OP whereafter some executive of the OP visited and rectified the problem. Battery again went out of order in September 2020 and when complaint was made the representative of OP visited and assured the complainant that the same would be replaced within 2-3 days but the same was not replaced. Not only this when the bill dated 03.01.2018 was shown to the executive of the OP he informed that complainant has been cheated by dealer, Respondent No.-1 and has given jobsheet to the complainant which is attached with the file and it is submitted since the OP has sold defective product/out of warranty product, OP be directed to refund Rs.14,800/- with compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
3. The OP2 & OP3 have filed reply and OP1 is running ex-parte. Although OP2 & OP3 were also proceeded ex-parte at the stage of filing evidence but Para-4 of the reply filed by OP2 & OP3 indicate that the OP found that battery was out of warranty period and the product has manufacturing date April 2014 whereas the date of purchase was 02.01.2018 and as per the warranty period policy of the company on given product, the OP was bound to replace the product only if the product has some issue, within the period of warranty & therefore after narrating so many facts it is prayed that complaint against OP2 & OP3 is false and be dismissed.
4. Complainant has not filed rejoinder but has filed his own evidence and OP2 & OP3 were proceeded ex-parte at the stage of evidence. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record. Admittedly the battery was purchased on 02.01.2018/03.01.2018 against the bill which is not disputed. It is also confirmed by OP2 & OP3 that the battery has manufactured date of April 2014 which was sold in 2018 and for this reason the complaint was made by the complainant to the OPs, but they did not rectify by stating that warranty period has expired. The Commission is of the considered opinion that if product is manufactured in 2014 and has been sold in 2018 i.e. around 45 months of its manufacturing and if the complaint would be lodged in February 2020 then definitely it would become out of warranty and all this has been done by OP1 either with or without intimation/permission of OP2 & OP3. It is not disputed that OP1 is authorized dealer of OP3 therefore any product sold by OP1 i.e. the authorized dealer of OP3 the manufacturer is liable and OP3 cannot be shun-away with its liability by stating that his dealer has cheated the complainant.
5. Other facts are not much disputed and therefore the Commission is of the opinion that complainant has been able to prove that OP & authorized dealer of OP3 has sold a defective product /out of warranty to the complainant for consideration. It is also matter of record that cost of the product/battery Rs.14,800/- and only Rs.11,800/- were charged from the complainant and Rs.3,000/- were deducted against the old item/old battery. This amount of Rs.3,000/- is deducted which is of the complainant as complainant would have got Rs.3,000/- from market it he would have sold the battery in open-market & therefore cost of the product remains Rs.14,800/- which is not disputed. Therefore complainant has been able to prove deficiency on the part of OP1 & OP3.
6. The Commission hereby orders as follows.

• The OP1 & OP3 jointly & severally would return the amount Rs.14,800/- to the complainant with interest @12% p.a. and compensation of Rs.5,000/- & litigation amount of Rs.4,000/- from the date of filing the case upto the date of realization on the entire amount.
• This Order is to be complied within 30 days from the receiving the same & in case the OP1 & OP3 would not pay the amount within 30 days ,the rate of interest would be @15% from the date of filing the complaint upto the date of realization on the said amount.   
• Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to both the Parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on 18.01.2024.