This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant, Sri Biswajit Chakroborty.
In a bird’s eye view the case of the complainant is that on 6.5.2011 complainant purchased one battery (A.M.C.O) from Aqurate Auto Center at a price of Rs. 11,500/- . Since purchase complainant is facing various troubles in connection with that battery. Complainant at his own cost repaired the battery without showing any grievance. Subsequently as that battery was not functioning and as such complainant contacted op no. 1, but he refused to render any service. Again complainant in spite of above noted insulting contacted op no. 1 and subsequently by a letter dt. 1.1.2016 complainant informed all problems to op no. 1, but op no. 1 did not pay any heed to that. Later on complainant lodged complain with the Consumer Affairs Department, but in spite of that op no. 1 did not appear before the Consumer Affair Department. As a result of which complainant has initiated this case praying for Rs. 5,000/- for his mental agony and sufferings and Rs. 3,000/- towards his loss and litigation cost including other reliefs.
Op no. 1 has contested the case by filing written version admitting that on 6.5.2011 complainant purchased one battery being SR No- 23226 from him and warranty of that battery covers only 24 months as per terms and conditions. It is alleged by op no. 1 that complainant tampered the sticker fixed on the said battery and illegally claiming warranty as 60 months. It is also stated by op no. 1 that complainant did not face any problem relating to that battery and at the end of December 2015 complainant contacted him and at that time op no. 1 tried to make him understand the position of warranty, but complainant refuted the statements of op no. 1. It is also stated by op no. 1 that as per terms and condition op no. 1 is not liable for any defect of that battery. It is also stated by op no. 1 that complainant repaired the said battery with the mistry of his liking and complainant himself admitted the same in his complaint. It is also alleged by op no. 1 that complainant used the said battery for about 4 ½ years smoothly and to get additional facility initiated this case. Finally, op no. 1 has prayed for dismissal of this case.
Op no. 2 did not contest the case.
On the basis of above pleadings following points are taken up for consideration:
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Whether the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the Opposite parties?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether the opposite parties carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite parties as alleged and whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point No. 1
From the materials on record it is transpired that the complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As the complainant is using battery as provided by the opposite parties, thus, the complainant is none but purely a consumer to the opposite parties and op no. 1 admitted that complainant purchased battery from him.
Point No.2
Complainant and op no. 1 are resident/carrying on business or having their shop within the district of Hooghly. The complaint valued within Rs. 20,00,000/-limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case.
Point No. 3
In support of his case complainant submitted affidavit-in-chief and op no. 1 also submitted his affidavit-in-chief. It may be noted that both complainant as well as op no. 1 also furnished their brief note of arguments.
Having gone through the contents of the complaint, written version as well as affidavit-in-chief of the parties including brief note of argument of the parties meticulously it is palpably crystal clear that complainant in his complaint that he get the battery in question repaired at his own cost. Again in his affidavit-in-chief in paragraph no. 2 he mentioned that he repaired the battery in question at his own cost.
Obviously the complainant stuck a strong blow at the very root of his case when he admitted and confessed that he get the battery in question repaired at his own cost.
It is pertinent to note that in fact during warranty period if any consumer repairs any goods at his own cost from outside, in that case he violates the terms and conditions of the warranty.
From the documents it appears that battery in question was purchased on 6.5.2011. Curiously enough in the complaint, complainant alleged many times many allegations, nut he did not mention any specific date regarding his alleged attending in the shop of op no. 1. Only he mentioned that on 1.1.2016 by letter he informed entire matter to op no. 1.
Ld. Counsel appearing for the op no. 1 submitted that the photo copy of warranty furnished by complainant clearly shows the conditions that for the flat plate UPS batteries indicated by ‘F’ as the last letter in the battery type 18 months and for Tubular plate UPS batteries indicated by ‘T’ as the last better in the battery type 24 months. According to him, complainant after the expiry of warranty period lodging complaint and as such he is not entitled to have any relief he claimed in this case.
To counter this piece of argument ld. Advocate of complainant in fact, has failed to make any convincing arguments whatsoever.
Considering the entire pros and cons of the materials on record and regard being had upon the submissions of the ld. Counsel appearing for the parties this Forum is of the view that the foundation of the case of the complaint appears tobe very weak and at the same time appears to be sans any substance to appreciate.
In the above backdrop this Forum is answering point no. 3 in negative.
Point NO 4
In view of the discussion made hereinabove, we have no hesitations to come to a conclusion that complaint has totally failed to prove his case. Thus, the opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation to the complainant.
Hence, it is,
-
that the complaint case being no. C.C. 53 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest against op no. 1 and ex parte against op no. 2.
Let a copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/ their ld. Advocates on record by hand with proper acknowledgement/ send by ordinary course for information and necessary action.
