DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.

                                  …………………..

Presents:-

1. Sri A.K.Purohit, President.
2. Smt. S.Rath, Member.

                        Dated Bolangir the 12^th day of October 2017.

                        C.C.No. 22 of 2017.

Dr. Shyam Sundar Mishra, age-57 years son of late Shankar Prasad Mishra,

Resident of Santipada,  Near Chandra Sekhar Temple, Bolangir Town,

P.O- Rajendra College, P.S & Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                                  ..             ..           Complainant.

                                 -Versus-

1.Sri Balaram Agrawal, Proprietor of Roshni Electrical House,

   At-Hotel Surya Complex Near Samaleswari Mandir Chowk,

   Bolangir Town, P.O/P.S & Dist- Bolangir.

2.The Luminous Power Technology Pvt. Ltd. At-C-8 & C-9,

   Community Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058.

3.The Anima Electronics & Appliances, At-Fatak, Budharaja,

    Sambalpur-768004.

                                                                                  ..               ..         Opp.Parties.

Adv. for the complainant-   None.

Adv.for the O.P No.1      -  Sri A.K.Mishra & Associates.

Adv. for the O.Ps 2 & 3   -  None.

                                                                                  Date of filing of the case- 11.05.2017.

                                                                                  Date of order                   -12.10.2017.

JUDGMENT.

Sri A.K.Purohit, President.

                  The case of the complainant is that, he had purchased a Luminous Battery from O.P.No.1 for a consideration of Rs 12,526/-  on dt.15.04.2014 which is warranted for a period of 36 months of  free replacement  & 48 months of maintenance. After 2 years of its use the complainant found defect in the battery to which he had reported the same before the O.P.No.1, but no step taken to remove the defect of the battery by the O.Ps. The complainant alleges that, although the defective battery has been sent to the O.P.No.3 on dt.4.4.2017 by O.P.No.1, the defect has not been removed and was returned to the complainant with the same defect like low back up etc. Hence the complaint.

2.                Although notice has been served on O.P.No.2 neither he appeared nor proceeded with the case, hence he was set exparte vide order dt.22.07.2017. Other O.Ps are set exaprte due to non filing of version vide other dt.7.9.2017. O.P.No.1 files his version at a late stage and before hearing of the case, hence his version has been accepted for proper adjudication of the case.

3.               In his written version the O.P.No.1 denied the complainant’s allegations and submitted that due to the defect in the invertor the battery was not functioning properly. The O.P.No.1 took proper care on the complaint of the complainant and hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.No.1.

4.               Heard both the parties. Perused the documentary evidence, available on record. The retail invoice issued by the O.Ps vide S.L.No.787  dt. 15.4.2014 shows that the complainant had purchased the luminous battery on payment of Rs 12,526/- .Perused the warranty issued by the manufacturer. The battery warranted for free replacement. Perused the service report issued by O.P.No.3 vide its Sl.No.135 dt.4.4.17 which shows that there was defect in the battery and the service center tried to repair the battery. All these evidence shows that, the battery of the complainant was found defective during warranty period. No evidence was produced by the O.Ps to show that, the battery was a defect free one or the same has been replaced as per the warranty. Since the defect of the battery was not removed by the service center, there must be some inherent defects in the battery.

5.              The O.Ps are duty bound to provide  service to the complainant during warranty period and to provide a defect free product to the complainant. Since the manufacturer warranted for free replacement, the complainant is entitled to a defect free new battery.

6.             The learned advocate for the O.P.1 submitted that, the O.P.No.1 has taken proper care by sending the battery to the service center and since the product is warranted by the manufacturer, there is no deficiency on the part of O.P.1. In my opinion there is force in the contention of O.P.No.1. In a decision reported in 2017(2) CPR,524(NC), Manager Jaika Automobiles Pvt. Ltd.-Vrs-  Leela Sahu & another, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that, “Dealer of goods cannot be held liable for manufacturing defect”

7.             With these materials available on record and under the aforesaid position of law, the O.Ps 2 & 3 are liable to replace a defect free battery to the complainant. Hence ordered.

                                      ORDER.

                 The O.Ps 2 & 3 are directed to replace a defect free new battery of the same model and brand to the complainant after receipt of the defective battery from the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The complainant shall deposit the defective battery before O.P.1. The O.Ps 2 & 3 are further directed to pay Rs 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only to the complainant towards cost and compensation within the aforesaid period.

                 Accordingly the case is disposed off.

Order pronounced in open forum this the 12^th day of October 2017.

                               (S.Rath)                                            (A.K.Purohit)

                                Member                                               President