Haryana

Charkhi Dadri

CC/35/2020

Surender - Complainant(s)

Versus

Soorvi Traders Tikona Park, - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Sandeep Dhankhar

23 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHARKHI DADRI.

 

                                                          Complaint No.        35 of 2020.

                                                          Date of Institution: 18.3.2020.

                                                          Date of Order:         23.10.2024

Surender S/o Sh. Ram Naryan r/o RamNagar, PO Ghasola, Tehsil & Distt. Charkhi Dadri

                             Versus

….…. Complainant

 

Soravi Traders, Tikona Park, College Road, Charkhi Dadri, Tehsil & Distt. Charkhi Dadri through Proprietor.

                                                                   …….Respondents.

    

     COMPLAINT UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.

 

Before:        Shri Manjit Singh Naryal, President,

                   Shri Dharam Pal Rauhilla, Member,

                   

Present:       Shri Sandeep Dhankar, Adv. for complainant.

                     Shri Rahul Kumar, Adv. for OP.

 

ORDER

                    In brief, the grievance of the complainant is that he had purchased two inverter Batteries vide bill serial no.119 dated 19.7.2017 for a total sum of Rs.24,600/- from the OP with warranty for 3 years. It is alleged that one battery became defective on 30.11.2019. On which the complainant took the battery to the OP shop for replacement. The OP asked for warranty card but the complainant could not provide the warranty card as the warranty card was lost somewhere. About two months later in January 2020, the second battery also got damaged. So he went to shop of OP and told that the second battery had also got damaged, then the OP said that he would not change the battery without the warranty card. The complainant again contacted the OP and requested him to replace the defective battery but OP started to misbehave with the complainant. The complainant also sent a legal notice to the OP through his counsel, but the OP did not pay any heed towards the complaint of complainant which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in terms of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

                   Hence, the complainant has come to this Commission and filed the present complaint with the prayer to direct the OP to refund the cost of the batteries worth Rs.24,600/- alongwith interest and compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental pain and harassment suffered by him alongwith Rs.11,000/- litigation expenses. Besides any other relief for which the complainant is found entitled.

2.                OP on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the complainant has not made manufacturer of batteries i.e. Electra Battery Company party, which is a necessary party. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.

3.               Both the parties in support of their respective averments tendered in documentary evidence their respective affidavits and adduced certain documents.  Reference of relevant record shall be given in this order. 

4.                 We have heard both the counsel for parties and gone through the case file thoroughly and after hearing the rival contentions of both the parties, we are of the convinced view that the present complaint has no merits and the same deserves dismissal, for the reasons mentioned hereinafter.

5-                After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the material available on the records, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant has not produced warranty card and deserves dismissal, as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  The complainant had purchased two inverter Batteries of Electra Brand from OP vide bill No.119 dated 19.7.2017 (Ex.C1). The terms and conditions mentioned on the bill inter alia prescribes  “No warranty claim without bill and warranty card” and “warranty of all products will be given by concerned company as per their items and conditions, we will only help  in the process we bear no other liability responsibility.” Electra, the manufacturer is a necessary party who is responsible and liable for any manufacturing defect in the batteries and OP being a seller/agent of the manufacturer company cannot be held liable. However, OP was under obligation to extend his help in replacement/repairing batteries in case warranty card was produced as per terms mentioned on bill.

                   In view of above facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party i.e. the manufacturer as the complainant has failed to implead necessary party in the complaint and produce warranty card for the batteries.

          Thus as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and dismiss the complaint. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of costs.  File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.