Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.

                                                          Complaint No. :  278.

                                                          Instituted on     : 23.05.2023.

                                                          Decided on      : 30.11.2023.

Baljit Singh S/o Dariya Singh VPO Sanghi 83, Panna Daalyaan, Rohtak.

                                                                    ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

The Authorized Signatory Fujiyama Power Systems Pvt. Ltd, 53A/4,6 Rama Road, Ind. Area Near Sat Guru Ram Singh Marg Metro Station Near NDPL Grid Office, Delhi, Pin 110015.

                                                                    ……….Opposite party.

          COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,2019.

BEFORE:  SH. NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

                   DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.

                   DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.

Present:       Complainant in person.

                   Opposite party already exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT :

1.                Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that on 09.08.2020, he had purchased a UTL tubular battery Model-UIT-1536 with 4 years warranty in Rs.12,500/- (Rupees Twelve thousand five hundred only). The battery was not working since long within warranty period, so he contacted the officials/engineers of service center namely Rohan and Mukul on their contact numbers but the service center did not bother to resolve the issues. Complainant had also contacted the opposite party on several occasions but got no support from the respondent’s side. The complainant has sent a legal notice dated 04.02.2023 to the opposite party but the problem was not resolved. Hence this complaint is prayed that respondent may kindly be directed to refund Rs.12,500/- and also to pay Rs.20,000/- as deficiency in the services and litigation expenses to the complainant.

2.                After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party through regd. post on dated 07.06.2023 but the same was not received back either served or unserved. As such after expiry of statutory period of 30 days, opposite party was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.07.2023 of this Commission.

3.                 Ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 and closed his evidence.

4.                 We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

5.                 Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant had purchased the battery on 09.08.2020 and as per exhibits Ex.C6 to Ex. C9 complainant had contacted the service centre of the opposite party and acknowledgment of the same was also received. In the acknowledgement received from the opposite party, it is observed that opposite party have assigned service engineer Rohan to resolve the issues of the complainant but failed to resolve the issues in the said battery.  Legal notice was also served to the opposite party on dated 04.02.2023. It is also observed that at the time of arguments complainant has placed on record copy of a certificate ‘Annexure–JN-A’ issued by proprietor of Dhruv Solar System, who has submitted that he checked the battery at the house of complainant, which was defective and there was no back up in the battery. One more document i.e. bill of battery ‘Annexure-JBN-B’ is also placed on record by the complainant which shows that the complainant has purchased another battery on 10.02.2023 as the battery in question was not replaced by the opposite party. On the other hand, opposite party has not appeared before this Commission for the rebuttal against the pleadings of the complainant placed on the file and remained exparte in the present case. As such all the allegations leveled against the opposite party regarding defective battery set stands proved. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable to refund the amount to the complainant.

7.                In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.12500/-(Rupees twelve thousand and five hundred only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.23.05.2023 till its realization and shall also pay Rs.6000/-(Rupees six thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service as well as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However complainant is directed to hand over the battery in question to the opposite party at the time of making payment by the opposite party.

8.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

30.11.2023.

                                                          .....................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Tripti Pannu, Member

                                                          ……………………………….

                                                          Vijender Singh, Member