SRI R.S.NAYAK, MEMBER … The brief fact of case is that, the complainant, had procured a Su-Kam Battery, bearing its model No.CN180 A.H., Serial No.00301A51851907128275, invoice No.1989 on dated 20.08.2012 from the OP.no.2 for Rs.14,811/- obtaining warranty card and vouchers which contains 48 months warranty. But in the month of Sept'2013 the battery stop its work and did not back up its power. Hence the complainant approached the OP.2 who advised to contact the OP.1 through toll free number and as per his advise he contacted the OP.1 customer care vides toll free no.18001024423 for so many times and finally the OP deputed its service engineer who examining the battery advised that the battery has manufacture problem and advised to change the battery, and issued a service job sheet to that effect. The complainant thereafter tried to charge so many times but the battery did not charging. Hence again during April'2014 he contacted the OP.1 requesting to replace the battery but for no response. Once again the complainant contacted through the toll free to the OP.1 during June'2014 for which the OP deputed a service engineer named Sri Mohant who verified the voucher and warranty card and suggested to replace the battery as soon as possible. Hence as per suggestion of service engineer he approached the OP.s through so many letter persuasions through R/P, Speed Post etc but for no action yet has been taken on part of OP.s and the letters along with postal acknowledgements enclosed with the complaint for perusal. It is pertinent to mention here that the battery covered with 36 months free replacement warranty and upto 48 months ‘conditional warranty’ of replacement but the OP.1 being the corporate office denied all his efforts and under compulsion the complainant purchased another inverter by paying huge expenses. So the complainant alleged that the OP has deliberately provide him a substandard battery set for a good price, hence there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.s and to which act the complainant sustained mental injury, physical pain and financial hardship due to the malfeasance actions of OP.s. So he prayed before the Forum to direct the OP.s to pay the price of alleged battery and a sum of Rs.80,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. The complainant has filed invoice of the alleged inverter set, bunch of letters addressed to OP 1 & 2, warranty card, job cards, postal receipts etc. The OP.s neither appeared nor filed their counter in the case, despite several chances for more than 90 days of its admission, hence they declared as ex parte as per provisions contemplated in C.P.Act 1986, so we decided to proceed the case as evidences available in record on merit. Heard from the side of complainant and perused the records.
3. The consumer protection act is a socio economic beneficial law, intended for speedy delivery of justice to the aggrieved and needy consumers and every complaint is supposed to be disposed off within a timeframe in consonance with the objects of the benevolent legislature, but inordinate delay in procurement of evidences and counter by the parties have emerged for reaching delirium to achievement of such objects.
4. From the above submissions, it reveals that the complainant has procured the inverter battery set on dt.20.08.2012 by paying an amount of Rs.14811/- obtaining warranty card of 48 months and the same appears defect just in one year i.e during Sept’2013. As per legal norms the complainant approached the OP.1 & 2 for so many times for its repair/replace, but the OP.s neither repaired the same nor replaced it with a new one as per warranty conditions. As a result of which the complainant being an age old retired person under compulsion purchased another battery set incurring huge financial losses. Considering the evidences, written submissions by the complainant, we are of the view that, the Battery set purchased by the complainant has inherent defect and the OP.s failed to provide service to the complainant within valid warranty period. Thus the complainant being @ age of 72 years sustained immense mental agony with the defective set, and also inflicted financial losses and valuable times due to the negligence and unfair practices of OP.s, hence he craves for the leave of this forum and prayed for compensation.
5. Based on the evidence adduced by complainant and the pleading put forth, it is found that, this office has served notice to the OP.1 being the manufacturer on dt.16.11.2017 through R.P and the same is received by the OP.1 on dt.23.11.2017 (as per postal tracking report) but the OP.s are neither taken any initiations to settle the matter of complainant nor feel it proper to file their counter in the case, even then they did not appeared before this forum in any manner, so there is nothing to deny the contentions leveled by the complainant in deliberate absence of OP.s, hence we feel that the action of OP.s is highhanded, illegal, arbitrary and unfair which amounts to deficiency in service and hence found guilty under the provisions of the C.P.Act 1986, as thus the complainant is entitled for relief. However observing manufacture defect in the alleged product we allowed the complaint against the OP.no.1 with cost.
ORDER
i. The opposite party no.1, C.E.O./M.D., Su-Kam Power Systems Ltd, supra is hereby directed to pay the cost of the battery set in question of Rs.14,811/- (Rupees fourteen thousand eight hundred & Eleven only), besides to pay Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as cost of litigation to the complainant.
ii. The above awards shall be complied with in 30 days of this order, failing which, the total awarded sum will carry extra Rs.50/- per day till its realization. Order pronounced in the open forum on this the 26th day of Feb' 2018.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT,DCDRF,
Memo No_______________DF Dt………………………
Copy to the parties concerned.
PRESIDENT, DCDRF,
NABARANGPUR
