DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.561 of 29-11-2016

Decided on 03-04-2017

Darshan Singh aged about 50 years S/o Hakam Singh R/o Village Mehta, Tehsil & District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Shree Ganesh Battery House, Hanumanji Chowk, G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

2.Exide Industrial Limited, Village Hazara Opp. Vista Resorts, Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar-144025, through its Area Sales Manager.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the complainant: Sh.Harraj Singh, Advocate.

For opposite parties: Ex-parte.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President

1. The complainant Darshan Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Shree Ganesh Battery House and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Exide battery bearing IPDO No.492556 for Rs.15,000/- vide bill dated 23.11.2012 from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2. At the time of purchase of the battery, opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that it is of best quality and there is no defect in its functioning. Opposite party No.1 also provided 5 years guarantee in case of any defect.

3. It is alleged that after purchase of the battery, the complainant got the same installed in his premises. Now, the battery stopped functioning for the last more than 4 months. It is not giving any output in case of power cut. The complainant time and again lodged the complaints with opposite parties and personally visited the office of opposite party No.1. The Area Sales Manager of opposite party No.2 namely Mr.Vaneet Garg visited the house of the complainant and checked the battery. He found that the battery is not functioning and assured to do needful at the earliest, but to no effect. The complainant has got issued a legal notice to opposite parties on 15.10.2016 calling upon them either to replace the defective battery with new one or in alternative to refund of its price i.e. Rs.15,000/- within 7 days, but to no effect.

   On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. He has prayed for directions to opposite parties either to replace the battery with new one or in alternative to refund of its price i.e. Rs.15,000/- and also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-. Hence, this complaint.

4. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties. As such, ex-parte proceedings were taken against them.

5. Complainant was asked to produce evidence.

6. In ex-parte evidence, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 10.3.2017, (Ex.C1); photocopy of retail invoice, (Ex.C2); Copy of legal notice, (Ex.C3); postal receipts, (Ex.C4) and closed the evidence.

7. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and gone through the file carefully.

8. Learned counsel for complainant has submitted that the complainant has purchased the battery. The invoice, (Ex.C2) proves this fact. Opposite parties provided warranty of 60 months. This fact is also mentioned on invoice, (Ex.C2). The complainant has alleged that the battery has stopped functioning. The legal notice was issued to opposite parties, copy of which is Ex.C3. Opposite parties have not replied to the legal notice. Adverse inference can be drawn against opposite parties for this reason. Opposite parties have not come forward to contest the complaint. Although, opposite party No.1 is dealer and opposite party No.2 is manufacturer, but there is no authorized service centre at Bathinda. Therefore, opposite party No.1 is also equally responsible for getting the needful done. The deficiency in service stands proved. Both opposite parties are liable to replace the product with new one or refund of its price. The complainant is also entitled to compensation.

   To support his contentions, learned counsel for complainant has cited following cases law:-

   i) Blue Chip India Vs. Dr.Chandrashekara Patial 2007(1) CPJ 69 (NC);

   ii) Harmohinder Singh Vs. Anil Sehgal and Anr. 1999 (2) CPJ 8 (NC); and

   iii) M/s I.C.C Computer System Vs. Gagan Bharat and Anr. 2013(3) C.P.R. 104.

9. We have given careful consideration to these submissions and gone through the cases law cited by learned counsel for complainant.

10. The complainant has pleaded that he has purchased Exide battery from opposite party No.1, manufactured by opposite party No.2. The invoice, (Ex.C2) proves this fact. The complainant has also pleaded that opposite party No.1 provided warranty for 60 months. This fact is also mentioned on the invoice, (Ex.C2). The product was purchased on 23.11.2012 and complaint has been filed in the month of November 2016. The complaint is within the warranty period. The complainant has deposed on oath that the battery has stopped functioning. This evidence of the complainant is unrebutted and unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve this evidence.

11. The complainant has prayed for replacement of the battery with new one or refund of its price i.e. Rs.15,000/-. He has not produced any warranty terms and conditions. He has also not produced on record any evidence to prove any manufacturing defect in the battery. He has already used the battery for about 4 years. Therefore, there cannot be any manufacturing defect.

    Of-course, opposite parties are liable to repair the battery as per warranty terms and conditions. Opposite party No.1 is dealer from whom the complainant has purchased the battery. Opposite party No.2 is manufacturer. As per complainant, there is no authorized service centre of opposite party No.2 at Bathinda. In these circumstances, the dealer can also be directed to get the needful done.

12. For the reasons recorded above, the complaint is partly accepted with Rs.2000/- as cost and compensation against opposite parties. Opposite parties are directed to repair the battery as per warranty terms and conditions.

13. The compliance of this order be made jointly and severally by opposite parties within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

15. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record.

    Announced:- (M.P Singh Pahwa)

    03-04-2017 President

     

     

    (Jarnail Singh)

    Member