Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 43.
Instituted on : 18.01.2017.
Decided on : 05.09.2018.
Sh. Anoop Singh S/o Sh. Ram Kishan R/o VPO Bhani Chanderpal, Tehsil Meham, District Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- The Manager/Proprietor, Shree Sai Invertor Battery, Address Thana Road, Opp. State Bank of Patiala, Meham, Rohtak.
- The Managing Director/Manager/Area Incharge, O/o Exide Industries Ltd. Exide House, 8/42, Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, Opposite MDH Spice Factory, New Delhi-110015.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.
Present: Sh.Govind Balhara, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 exparte.
Sh.Yogender Dalal Advocate for OP No.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that complainant had purchased an invertor and Exide Battery from the OP No.1 on 19.05.2014 for a sum of Rs.11800/- with three years warranty as per bill no.2748 dated 19.05.2014. That in January 2016, battery started creating problem so the complainant contacted OP No.1 and OP no.1 provided another battery to the complainant. That this battery also stopped charging/less charging after two months and complainant again complained the same to the OP No.1 but despite his repeated requests neither the battery was properly repaired nor the amount was refunded. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to repair/replace the battery free of cost or to refund the price of battery Rs.11800/- alongwith compensation and cost of litigation as explained in relief clause.
2. After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties No.1 did not appear despite service through registered post and as such was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 30.05.2017 of this Forum. Opposite party No.2 in its reply has submitted that the service centre checked the defected battery and found that battery was given the low back up so the company replace the battery and given the new battery in the name of dealer, second customer name Anoop Singh. So there is no deficiency in service to our end directly. That the matter is between the complainant and respondent no.1 so all the allegations are denied totally. It is prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, Ex.CW2/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence. On the other hand ld. counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed his evidence.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. As per the written statement itself filed by the respondent no.2 in para no.7 on merits admits that the battery was giving no back up and the same was replaced by the respondent No.2 and gave a new battery to the Shri Ram Electric company(dealer of the company) but the respondent no.2 failed to prove that the dealer is still working with the respondent no.2. Somehow the complainant is entitled for a new battery because the same was damaged within warranty period. During the time of arguments the complainant advanced that respondent no.1 is now not doing the business and closed his shop. Hence the manufacturer i.e. opposite party No.2 is liable for the acts of his dealer.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that the battery in question is already in the possession of dealer/opposite party no.1. As such complaint is allowed and it is directed that opposite party no.2 shall hand over the new battery to the complainant and shall also pay a sum of Rs.2000/-(Rupees two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.09.2018.
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Ved Pal Hooda, Member.
