Orissa

Cuttak

CC/147/2015

Rabindra Kumar Sahoo - Complainant(s)

Versus

Satyam Battery House - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2016

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. Cuttack
Sector-1,CDA,Near Saticha
 
Complaint Case No. CC/147/2015
 
1. Rabindra Kumar Sahoo
Mahamadabad,Tirtol,Jagatsinghpur
Jagatsinghpur
Odisha
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Satyam Battery House
Madhupatana,cuttack
Cuttack
Odisha
2. M/s Su-Kam Power System Ltd
689,Bomikhal,Bhubaneswar
Khurda
Odisha
3. M/s Su-Kam Power System Ltd
54,Udyog Vihar,sector-37
Gurgaon
Haryana
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. Dhurba Charan Barik PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Bichitra Nanda Tripathy MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Sarmistha Nath MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 22 Aug 2016
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.147/2015

 

Rabindra Kumar Sahoo,

At:Mahamadabad,PO:Pipalmadhalo,P.S:Tirtol,

Dist:Jagatsinghpur.                                                                   … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

  1. Proprietor,M/s. Satyam Battery House,

Infront of Samrat Cinema Hall,Madhupatna,

Cuttack-10.

 

  1. M/s. Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd.,

Service Centre, At:689,Bomikhal,

Infront of Santoshi Maa Mandir,

Cuttack-Puri Road,Road,Bhubaneswar-10,

Dist:Khurda.

 

  1. M/s. Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd.

Corporate Office at Plot No.54, Udyog Vihar,

Phase-VI,Sector-37,Gurgaon-122001,

Haryana (India).                                                                     … Opp. Parties.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,Preswident.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member.

 

Date of filing:   16.12.2015

Date of Order: 22.08.2016

 

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

                The complaint petition is against the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

  1. The complaint in short is that Sri Rabindra Kumar Sahoo purchased one Su-Kam make inverter 1000 along with Su-Kam make battery i.e. Su-Kam SBT 1500 Plus (Product Sl. No.14LTLMD001841) vide invoice No.883 dt.20.07.2013 with warranty for 5 years (as stated in the plaint )from the date of purchase and has paid Rs.20,700/- towards cost of the inverter and battery.

The battery was in use and it became out of order on 10.4.15 i.e in between 20-21 months of use and the complainant contacted the dealer , in turn the dealer instructed the complainant to contact the corporate office at Gurgaon vide toll free No.1800-102-4423.  The complainant contacted the corporate office vide complaint No.16043378092 dt.10.04.2015 and No.16053424556 dt.30.04.2015.  Thereafter the complainant was intimated by the service centre (O.P.2) to bring the battery to the service centre for checking.  On 17.4.2015 the battery was handed over at service centre along with the original warranty card against receipt.  The service centre failed to repair the said battery and when the complainant met the head of the service centre several times personally and requested for replacement/exchange of the battery, the complainant was misbehaved and scolded with filthy language.  Being disgusted, the complainant send a letter to the corporate office on 26.06.2015 by speed post and requested the corporate office to intervene in the matter and to take effective steps for replacement of the battery which yielded no result.  The complainant served a legal notice on the corporate office (O.P.3) on 22.7.15 but in vain.  Finding no other way, the complainant took shelter under this Hon’ble Forum.  He prayed to direct the O.Ps for exchange of Su-kam battery or to repair the same to function as per requirement and also grant required compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice & also for mental agony and harassment.

  1.  O.P.1 i.e. M/s. Satyam Battery house did not attend the enquiry whereas Sri Rabi Narayan Mishra working with M/s Su-Kam company has filed written version dt .21.01.2016 on behalf of O.P.2 and O.P.3.  It is also observed that Annexure-A(Goods Receipt Note dt.17.4.15), Annexure-B (Delivery Challan dt.01.05.2015), Annexure-C(Letter to complainant dt.16.5.15 to collect the battery) are actually not enclosed/submitted with the written version even if it is stated in the said written version that all such annexures are enclosed with the written brief.  After repair of the battery, it is alleged by the O.P.2 that the intimation was sent to complainant vide letter dt.16.5.15 but the complainant did not come to receive the battery.

3.(i) Observetion:

We have gone through the case carefully and perused the documents/papers as furnished by the complainant as well as by the O.Ps vide their written version dt.21.1.2016.  In their written version the O.Ps have admitted that the product was having warranty for a period of 36 months from the date of purchase and there was no manufacturing defect with the product but the complainant was reluctant to receive the battery after its repair but wanted a new battery in place of old battery. 

(ii) The O.P.2 should have served a second letter by registered post on the complainant to receive the same but the same has not done by the O.P.2.  Annexure-A,B & C are not enclosed with the written version which indicates that O.P.2 & 3 have failed to show correct picture to defend them before this  Hon’ble Forum.

(iii) It is also stated by the O.Ps that they have not received the registered letter dt.26.6.15(speed post) and the advocate’s notice dt.22.7.15 of the complainant which was also sent by registered post. Such a stand by the OPs appears to be false since the complainant has produced copy of receipts obtained from the postal authorities that such letters were sent by speed post/registered post. It is also alleged by the complainant against O.P.2 that the original guarantee card was given by the complainant at the time of giving the battery to O.P.2 for repair.

(iv) Since neither the Complainant nor the OPs have given the original or a xerox copy of such warranty card, it is really different to assess that whether the warranty was for 3 years or for 5 years. 

4.            From the above noted facts and circumstances, we conclude that the battery was not repaired properly and the O.P2 has not intimated to the Complainant to receive the battery on 16/05/2015 and  the battery is kept with O.P.2 from 17.4.15 to till date.

                Thus to meet the ends of justice, we allow the dispute against O.P.2 & O.P.3.

ORDER

O.P.3 will replace a new battery in place of the old battery and the said battery must function properly for a further period of one & a half years from the date it is handed over to the Complainant. O.P.2 will also pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment.  No further order as to cost of litigation.   The above orders shall be carried out within a period of 45 days, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Hon’ble Forum as per C.P.Act,1986.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 22nd day of August, 2016 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                                                                                                              (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                        Member.

 

 

   (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                President

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                                                                                                                                          Member(W)

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dhurba Charan Barik]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Bichitra Nanda Tripathy]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sarmistha Nath]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.