1. The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he purchased a Luminous Battery vide LPT 12150 H 12V/150 AH (Sl. No.T9D186E1 461423) manufactured by OP.2 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.2184 dt.1.2.2014 for Rs.14, 500/- but the said battery stopped working on 15.12.14. It is submitted that the complainant approached the OP.1 for its replacement but the OP.1 explained that the OP.2 has shifted its business from Odisha and hence battery cannot be replaced. It is further submitted that the battery stopped its working during its warranty period but the Ops failed to replace the battery incurring loss to the complainant. Thus alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops the complainant has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the Ops to replace the battery with new one and to pay Rs.60, 000/- towards compensation to the complainant.
2. The OP.1 in spite of valid notices neither filed counter nor participated in the proceeding in any manner. The OP.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the battery in dispute is not registered in the name and address of the present complainant but the same is registered in the name of one Dambarudhar Mali, Vill-Dengapadar, Dist-Koraput, Near MCD School, Jeypore who is the original owner of the battery. It is submitted that the said battery was brought by OP.1 to the Service Centre of OP.2 at Berhampur vide Complaint No.JS148BER000143 for improper charging and the battery after repair was sent to the dealer on 20.8.14 and after that there was no complaint reported in respect of said battery. It is further submitted that with a bona fide intent the representative of Service Centre of OP.2 visited the premises of the complainant on 14.9.15 to check the grievance of the complainant but found no such product in the premises of the complainant. Further as per the record of OP.2, the representative similarly visited the premises of the original owner, Sri Dambarudhar Mali and found that he is still using the ‘stand by’ battery provided by the OP.1 and the OP.1 has not yet returned the battery after repair. The OP also submitted that the complainant is working in an adjacent counter of OP.1 and both are known to each other. With these and other contentions, denying any fault on its part, the OP.2 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.
3. Both the parties have filed certain documents along with affidavits in support of their respective cases. We have heard from the A/R for OP.2. In spite of opportunities the complainant did not take part in the hearing. We also perused the materials available on record.
4. In this case the complainant stated that he purchased a Luminous Battery LPT 12150 H 12V/150 AH Sl. No.T9D186E1 461423 from OP.1 vide Invoice No.2184 dt.01.2.2014 for Rs.14, 500/- from OP.1 and according to the complainant, the said battery stopped functioning on 15.12.14. The complainant had approached the OP.1 for replacement of the battery but the OP.1 stated that as the OP.2 has shifted its business from Odisha, he is not able to replace the same.
5. The OP in his counter stated that the present complainant is not the registered owner of the battery in dispute as per record of the Company where as the same has been registered in the name of Dambarudhar Mali of Village Dengapadar near MCD School, Jeypore. The OP further stated that for the first time the battery brought to the Service Centre of OP at Berhampur vide Complaint No.JS148BER000143 dt.14.8.14 with complaint improper charging and complaint was registered in the name of Sri Dambarudhar Mali. After repair the battery was sent back to the dealer on 20.8.14 for onward transmission to the customer. In support of its contention, the OP.2 has filed copy of service job sheet dt.20.8.14 and copy of customer details as well in this case.
6. Perused the sale invoice granted by OP.1 in favour of the complainant. Also perused the service job sheet dt.20.8.14 and printed copy of customer details filed by OP.2. It was ascertained that the battery details and specification in both the documents filed by the parties are same whereas the customer name and address defers. It was not understood as to how the same battery can be sold to two different persons on the same date. As per version of the complainant, when approached to OP.1 on 15.12.14, he was informed that the OP.2 has shifted its business from Odisha but from the documents and information available on record it was ascertained that the OP.2 has its service Centre at Berhampur and the battery in dispute has been repaired during 8/2014 there. It was also further ascertained that the owner of the battery is Mr. Dambarudhar Mali. The battery details in both the documents corroborates except the name of registered owner. Hence we are in doubt about the authenticity of both the documents.
7. In absence of participation and counter of OP.1 who is the dealer of OP.2 and claims to have sold the disputed battery to the complainant, the allegations of the complainant appear to be weak. In our opinion, the OP.1 is the right person who can negate or support the contentions of OP.2. As such non participation of OP.1 in the proceeding is fatal to the case of the complainant. Further the OP.1 has given false impression to the complainant that the OP.2 has shifted his business from Odisha in the face of job sheet dt.14.8.14 issued by OP.2 from their service Centre at Berhampur.
8. From the above facts and circumstances of the case, it was concluded that the documents furnished by the complainant and OP.2 are contradictory to each other and in absence of OP.1 it was difficult to ascertain that which one is genuine and which one is false or created one and also who is the genuine customer of the battery. Hence we do not find in merit in the case of the complainant which deserves dismissal.
9. In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.
(to dict.)
