Delhi

North East

CC/201/2014

Subhash verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tanisha Electrical - Opp.Party(s)

18 Sep 2019

ORDER

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 201/14

 

In the matter of:

 

	Subhash Verma S/o Raghuveer Singh Verma House No. B-126, Hardev Puri, 100 ft. Road, Shahdara Delhi-110093.	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2.	Tanisha Electronic B-30, Gali No.7 New Modern Shahdara, Delhi-110032.   Siam Taiwa Sales Ltd Plot No.11 Industrial Area Phase IInd Chandigarh	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION  :

27.05.2014 18.09.2019 18.09.2019

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Brief facts, of the present complaint are that on 28.12.2012 the complainant purchased a Taiwa Battery 150 AM 12 VOL T manufactured by OP2 from OP1 vide bill no. 08/388 for a sum of Rs. 7,500/-. The said battery carried a warranty of 18 months but started malfunctioning soon after purchase for which the complainant telephonically registered complaint no. 99374 on 10.03.2014 with OP2 which sent its engineer on 15.03.2014 but did nothing in terms of repairing the said battery and merely asked the complainant to call up on several customer care numbers all of which calls remained un-responded to. Complainant wrote e-mails dated 15.05.2014 and 23.05.2014 to the complainant customer care of OP2 requesting for replacement of the battery but got no feedback for the same. Therefore alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs complainant was constrained to file the present complaint before this Forum praying for issuance of directions against the OPs to refund the cost of the battery i.e. Rs. 7,500/- alongwith compensation of Rs. 11,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation.

Complainant has attached copy of purchase invoice dated 28.12.2012.

2. Notice was issued to the OPs on 30.05.2014. OP1 entered appearance on 02.09.2014 and filed a representation on its letter head admitting having sold the subject battery to the complainant which reportedly has been malfunctioning as per complainant and undertook to appear before this Forum as and when directed to. Notice to OP2 was received back with postal endorsement ‘refused’ dated 02.10.2014 which is deemed service as per Section 28 (3A) of CPA and therefore was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 03.12.2014.
3. Complainant filed ex-parte evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments in reassertion of grievance as made out in the complaint praying for relief claimed.
4. On hearing held on 13.07.2018, directions were issued to the complainant to file warrant card, e-mails and service report on the next date of hearing which the complainant was apprised of on the subsequent date i.e. 29.08.2018 since on the previous date complainant was not present when the directions were issued. However complainant submitted in hearing held on 09.10.2018 that he is neither in possession of e-mails nor warranty card since both have been lost / misplaced much earlier. Therefore the matter was posted for oral arguments.         
5. We have heard the arguments addressed by the complainant and have screened the invoice placed on record.

The battery was purchased in December 2012 and complaint was filed in May 2014 and warranty card was not filed by the complainant despite directions since it was the most vital document to ascertain the warranty period / validity for allowing any relief in the said matter and in all likelihood was intentionally not filed / withheld by oral submission of it being valid for 18 months only to cover the period from purchase till filing of the complaint i.e. 17 months. This Forum is not inclined to allow the complaint in such circumstances of such a vital piece of evidence having being withheld by the complainant by lame excuse of being lost / misplaced and therefore dismiss the complaint as not maintainable for want of evidence.

6. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
7. File be consigned to record room.
8. Announced on 18.09.2019

 

(N.K. Sharma)     President

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member