BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.311 of 2014

Date of Instt. 9.9.2014

Date of Decision :04.12.2014

Vikas Bhatia, aged about 29 years son of Vinod Bhatia,, R/o 41, Ashok Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Su-kam Service Centre, Opp.Avtar Henery Petrol Pump, Jalandhar through its Pro/Manager/Authorized Representative.

2. Su-kam Power Systems Ltd, Plot No.54, Udyog Vihar, Phase VI, Sector 37, Gurgaon-122001(Haryana), through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Representative.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Sh.Kamal Vij, Service Incharge on behalf of Opposite Parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is owner of Chervolet Uva Car vide registration No.PN-08-BJ-0019. On 25.7.2013 complainant purchased a battery make Su-kam DIN 44 for his above said car from M/s SBH Group Products @ Seth Battery House, Mayor Building, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar vide their invoice No.4781 dated 25.7.2013 for Rs.4100/-. Warranty of 18 months was given for above said battery by the opposite parties. Within warranty period, the above said battery became out of order. On 4.8.2014 while coming from Ambala to Jalandhar with family the complainant stopped the car at Phagwara but after 10 minutes when the complainant re-started, it could not start despite trying number of times. However, the car was pushed manually with the help of road side person, then it started. An expert person who was present there and helped for pushing the car, told the complainant that the battery has become dead due to manufacturing defect. When the complainant reached Jalandhar, the defective battery was handed over to seller who replaced the battery after charging of Rs.200/-. Again on 12.8.2014 the battery became out of order. The complainant handed over the defective battery alongwith original bill and warranty card to dealer(Seth Battery House) for replacement. The dealer kept the battery and promised to get replaced the battery from opposite party No.1 within 4 or 5 days. After 5 days when the complainant went to take back the battery, the dealer told the complainant that the said battery has been sent to opposite party No.1 for replacement and further advised the complainant to approach opposite party No.1 for prompt delivery. When the complainant went to take the battery from opposite party No.1, at first the opposite party No.1 told the complainant that the dealer has not sent the battery. Then the complainant again reached the dealer who told the complainant that the battery is lying with opposite party No.1 for repair or replacement. Then the complainant again reached the opposite party No.1. After search the opposite party No.1 told the complainant battery is available with them which is OK and there is no defect in it and further told the complainant that there might be defect in the car. Then the complainant got checked the car/altinator from an expert mechanic who told the complainant that there is no defect in the car/altinator but the defect is in the battery which caused non start of car. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 and told them that there is no defect in the car but the defect is in the battery, so, the battery may be replaced with new one. But the opposite party No.1 turned down the genuine request of complainant. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace battery with fresh warranty from the date of replacement or return its cost i.e Rs.4100/- with interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through Kamal Vij, Service Incharge and filed a written reply in the shape of affidavit wherein it pleaded that on 3.9.2014 a battery was received by them through Seth Battery House, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar which was received by them vide challan No.56970 and they replaced the battery and gave it to M/s Seth Battery House on 4.9.2014 and also obtained signature in this regard. The battery is lying with Seth Battery House and complainant has filed false complaint against them. The customer never came to them to return battery. They denied other material averments of the complaint.

3. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB along with copies of documents Ex.C1 and Ex.C3 and closed his evidence.

4. On the other hand, Kamal Vij, Service Incharge of opposite parties No.1 & 2 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP/1 and Ex.OP/2 closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard complainant in person and Kamal Vij, Service Incharge on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2.

6. At the time of arguments Kamal Vij, Service Incharge of opposite parties No.1 & 2 made a statement which was recorded separately that they are ready to give brand new battery to the complainant with fresh warranty of six months in full and final satisfaction of the claim of the complainant. So opposite parties are ready to give brand new battery to the complainant as replacement of the old battery with fresh warranty of six months. The old battery was purchased by complainant on 25.7.2013 but it was found defective and according to the own version of the complainant the same was replaced. According to the complainant, the replaced battery again became out of order and he gave defective battery alongwith original bill and warranty card to the dealer i.e Seth Battery House for replacement. So the complainant has used the battery purchased on 25.7.2013 and further replaced battery for more than a year. The warranty was for 18 months. The opposite parties are ready to give brand new battery to the complainant and to extend warranty for remaining period of six months which is quite reasonable.

7. In view of above discussion, the complaint is accepted and opposite parties are directed to replace the battery of the complainant with new one of the same make and model with warranty of six months. However the complainant is awarded Rs.1500/- in lump sump on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

4.12.2014 Member President