West Bengal

Dakshin Dinajpur

CC/45/2012

Sri Tapan Kumar Saha, S/O- Late Radha Gobinda Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Pulak Karmakar, Dyanavox International Service - Opp.Party(s)

15 May 2013

ORDER

The complainant who runs a business under the name & style M/s. Shibshakti Studio purchased 16 (sixteen) nos. of DG POWER SMF/VRL Battery, model 28/12 on 21.12.2011 vide invoice no.DIS/SAL/0482/11-12 for his computer UPS in connection with said business.

 

            In the first part of January, 2012, he noticed that two of the sixteen batteries have become completely non-functioning. Pursuant to his repeated efforts, the OP Nos. 1 & 3 ultimately changed the defective batteries. In the first part of June, 2012, he again noticed all those sixteen batteries including the replaced  two batteries started indicating very low and down power and the UPS also showed low battery problems and the entire system became completely non-functioning. Because of such situation, the complainant faced much difficulty in running his business and consequently suffered financial loss and mental agony.

 

            Despite several attempts even through the OP-1, the OP Nos. 2 & 3 failed and neglected to mitigate the problem. The ultimate Advocate’s notice dated 27.6.2012 also yielded no positive result. Hence, the case.

 

            The OP No.1 by his written version practically supported the entire situation and submitted that his attempts to redress the grievance of the complainant by the OP Nos.2 and/ or 3 were also in vain.

 

            The OP No.1 personally appeared. The OP-2 contested the case through his authorized representative Mr. Mrinal Roy.

 

            Having perused the complaint, written version and other materials on record, it is an admitted position that the complainant purchased 16 (sixteen) nos. of batteries from the OP-1, the

 

                                                                                    Contd…. P/3

manufacturer and dealers of which were the OP Nos. 2 & 3. It has also become admitted that two of such batteries became defective but were replaced following long persuasions. It also goes undisputed that thereafter in June, 2012 all the 16 (sixteen) batteries became out of order and the position was intimated to the OPs several times but to no effect. The Advocate’s notice dt. 27.6.12 duly received by the OPs also yielded no result. During hearing, the submission of the OP-1 that “due information was given to the OPs- 2 & 3 about the entire circumstance” could not be demolished by the representative of the OP No.2.

 

            We find that the complainant was sincere enough to inform the OPs the difficulties he had been facing because of the defective batteries. But we do not find any attempt, specially. from the side of the OP Nos. 2 & 3 that they took any initiative to redress the problem faced by the complainant because of the batteries that went out of order. Admittedly, all these happened during the warranty period. So, there is clear deficiency in rendering due service to the consumer specially by the OP Nos. 2 & 3. The OP-3 appears to be the dealer while the OP-2 is the manufacturer. The OP –1 is the retailer from who the complainant purchased the batteries. It is also found that the said OP-1 has been co-operating with the complainant so that his grievances could be addressed. Therefore, it is the OP-2 who is ultimately held responsible for causing loss to the complainant and it is the OP-2 who should be directed to compensate the complainant. The representative of the OP-2, in fine, submitted that his company will replace the disputed batteries by new ones with fresh warranty of 12 (twelve) months from the date of such replacement and will also pay some compensation, the amount of which he left at the discretion of the Forum. Hence,

 

                                                O R D E R E D

 

            That the OP-2 within 45 days from the date of this order shall-

 

 

                                                                                    Contd…. P/4

 

1. replace all the sixteen batteries with new batteries along with fresh warranty of twelve months from the date of such replacement in respect of the new batteries and
2. shall deposit Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) only by account payee cheque in favour of the complainant in the Forum as compensation.

AND

            The complainant is directed to deposit Rs.3,000/-(Rs. Three thousand) only out of that compensation money in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund” (A/c No. 0093000100310261 with Punjab National Bank) on or before the date he receives the cheque from the Forum.

 

            Let plain copies of this order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost.