The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Manager/ Proprietor, Sukam Power Systems Ltd., Bhubaneswar and O.P No.2 is the Proprietor, Dynamic Systems, Balasore. 

                    1. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainant purchased one Sukam battery (180 Amp) bearing Sl. No.00301A51862608121890 from O.P No.2 on 15.02.2013 for a consideration amount of Rs.18,500/- vide invoice No.574, dt.15.02.2013. But on 11.02.2016, the aforesaid battery within the period of its warranty not given proper back-up, the Complainant made a complaint before O.P No.1 vide complaint No.16023927210 and claimed for replacement of the same. And on dt.12.02.2016, Sri S.K Sahoo (Service Engineer of O.P No.1) inspected the battery, being satisfied that the battery is not working properly received the battery along with the warranty card from the Complainant with a commitment that the new battery with proper back-up will be supplied to the Complainant within seven days, but the O.P No.1 did not comply the same. But on repeated request made by the Complainant with the O.P No.1, lastly the O.P No.1 informed the Complainant on 03.03.2016 that he has sent a new battery with proper back-up to the O.P No.2 and directed the Complainant to collect the same from the O.P No.2. Thus, the Complainant had been to O.P No.2 and requested him for check-up the battery’s back-up capacity and the O.P No.2 after checking informed to the Complainant that the said battery is an old one and not giving proper back-up and advised to negotiate with the O.P No.1. The O.P No.2 also issued a certificate to this effect on 08.03.2016 as per request of the Complainant and the Complainant did not receive the said battery rather requested the O.P No.1 to supply a battery with proper back-up. But the O.P No.1 did not supply the same. Thereafter, the Complainant served legal notices to both the O.Ps through his Advocate on 25.04.2016 vide Regd. Post with AD intimating the above facts and supply with a battery with proper back-up within the stipulated period of time. None of the O.Ps had taken any steps to supply the battery, though O.P No.1 and 2 received above said regd. letter on 30.04.2016 and 26.04.2016 respectively. Prayer for cost of battery and compensation towards financial loss and mental agony along with litigation cost.

                    2. The O.P No.1 did not appear in this case, hence the O.P No.1 is set ex-parte.

                    3. Written version filed by the O.P No.2 through their Advocate, where they have denied about the cause of action, but admitted to the extent that the O.P No.1 had sent an old battery vide Sl. No.05LTRMF0002910 under Challan No.8847 for the Complainant under warranty replacement under direction to the O.P No.2 to supply the same to the Complainant (Original copy of Challan supplied by the O.P No.1 is submitted herewith).

                    4. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether the Complainant is a Consumer.

(ii) Whether there was any cause of action to file this case.

(iii) Whether the O.Ps did not rectify the defects in proper way in respect of the disputed good purchased.

(iv) To what relief the Complainant is entitled ?  

                    5. Perused all the documents filed by the Parties available in the case record. The Advocate for the Complainant has argued that the Complainant has purchased the disputed Sukam Battery on 15.02.2013 from O.P No.2 by obtaining proper bill, which is available in the case record. While the said battery was within warranty period, did not give proper back-up, for which on 11.02.2016 he made a complain to the O.P No.1. On 12.02.2016, it was inspected by the Service Engineer of O.P No.2 and satisfied that it was not working properly and received back the battery with commitment to replace the battery within 7 days. After several approaches, the O.P No.1 supplied a new battery through O.P No.2 and it was found to be defective as not giving proper back-up. The Complainant did not receive the same and after several requests and Advocate’s notices to the O.Ps when no result came up, the Complainant approached this Forum for relief. However, the O.P No.2 has submitted the battery back-up report, which is available in the case record disclosing the defects found in the battery receipt. The Advocate notice issued to the O.Ps are available in this record. So in the circumstances, the Complainant has prayed for to pay the cost of the battery and damages etc. total amounting to Rs.18,500/-. The  O.P No.1 has been set ex-parte as mentioned earlier, O.P No.2 partly admitted and partly denied about the Complainant’s case and admitted that the sale of battery to the Complainant and defects found therein during warranty period and subsequent supply of battery and defects  found  therein. The O.P No.1 has no plea, being set ex-parte. Regarding cause of action, there is no specific document has been produced or raised during course of hearing by the O.Ps, for which we came to a finding that the Complainant has cause of action to file this case.  

                    6. So, now the fact remains that the disputed battery was not functioning properly within warranty period and received back by the O.P No.1 and newly supplied second battery by the O.P No.1 to the Complainant through O.P No.2, found defective and on subsequently repeated request of the Complainant replace by new one did not respond by the O.Ps. So, it clearly amounts to deficiency in service of O.P No.1 as Complainant is admitted to be a Consumer as per Law, for which he is liable for it and O.P No.1 is duty bound to supply the new battery to the Complainant on receiving from O.P No.1, in the alternative to pay the purchase price of battery and compensation and cost, which will meet the ends of justice in this case.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of entire case record, this Forum is of the opinion that it is a fit case to allow the Consumer case and in our opinion, direction to the O.P No.1 to replace the goods i.e. the alleged Sukam Battery by new one to the Complainant through O.P No.2 or in the alternative, to refund the purchase price of Rs.18,500/- and to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant by the O.P No.1; failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum, which will meet the ends of justice in this case. Hence Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against O.P No.1 and on contest against O.P No.2 with cost. The O.P No.1 is directed to replace the alleged Sukam Battery by new one to the Complainant through O.P No.2 or in the alternative, to refund the purchase price of Rs.18,500/- to the Complainant by taking back the defective battery and to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- and cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant by the O.P No.1 within 60 days from the date of receiving of this Order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum till realization. The Complainant is at liberty to realize the same from the O.Ps under due process of Law.                 

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 16th day of May, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.