The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.P, where O.P is the Proprietor, M/s. Basudev Electronics, O.T Road, Balasore.

                    2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant has purchased one LUMINOUS battery model- LPT12150H 12V-150AH, SL. No.37G341E1002521 on 28.09.2016 for Rs.13,400/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand four hundred) only along with one LUMINOUS UPS model- SOLARH UPS 850 VA, SL. No.25GA70B1006705 for Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand) only on the same day from O.P and the Complainant has obtained proper bill from the O.P for the above mentioned battery and UPS and the O.P also gave a warranty card for the said battery, which covers warranty for a period of 3 years from the date of purchase. The O.P also assured the Complainant that in case of any problem within the warranty period, they will replace the battery by a new one in case of non-repair. After one and half year from the date of purchase i.e. within the warranty period, the battery became defective, for which the inverter did not function. Thus, the Complainant approached the O.P to check the battery, but the O.P did not take any steps. So, the Complainant filed a written complaint before the O.P on 14.05.2018 and on 18.05.2018 for defective and non-functioning of battery. The Complainant requested the O.P to repair the defective battery or replace the same as per warranty, but the O.P did not pay any heed to it, which causes deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. So, the Complainant served a legal notice to the O.P on 07.06.2018 for supply of a new battery against the defective one within 15 days from receipt of the notice, but the O.P remained silent after due receipt of legal notice. Cause of action to file this case arose on 14.05.2018, 18.05.2018 and on 07.06.2018. The Complainant has prayed for replacement of defective battery by a new one along with compensation and litigation cost.

                    3. Though sufficient opportunities were given to O.P for his appearance, but he has not appeared in this case. The O.P is set ex-parte.

                    4. In order to substantiate their claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list, whereas the O.P has not filed any document in his support. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainant that she has purchased one Luminous battery on 28.09.2016 for Rs.13,400/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand four hundred) only along with one Luminous UPS for Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six thousand) only on the same day from the O.P and obtained bill from the O.P, the xerox copy of bills/ tax invoice has been filed as Annexure-3 and 2 respectively in this case by the Complainant. The O.P also gave a warranty card for the said battery, which covers warranty for a period of 3 years from the date of purchase, the xerox copy of warranty card has been filed as Annexure-4 in this case by the Complainant. But, within the warranty period, the battery became defective, for which the inverter did not function. So, the Complainant requested the O.P to repair the defective battery or replace the same as per warranty, but the O.P did not listen to it, which causes deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. So, the Complainant served a legal notice to the O.P, but the O.P remained silent. So, the Complainant has filed this case in this Forum praying for replacement of defective battery by a new one along with compensation and litigation cost. On the other hand, the O.P is set ex-parte as mentioned earlier, for which the case of the Complainant remained undisputed.

                    5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I come to the conclusion that it is a fit case to allow the claim of the Complainant along with compensation and litigation cost. Hence, the O.P is liable for replacement of the said battery with a new one of similar description, which shall be free from any defect and in case of failure, the O.P is liable to return the price of the said battery i.e. Rs.13,400/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand four hundred) only to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Hence, ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is allowed on ex-parte against O.P with cost. The O.P is directed to replace the said battery with a new one of similar description, which shall be free from any defect and in case of failure, the O.P is directed to return the price of the said battery i.e. Rs.13,400/- (Rupees Thirteen thousand four hundred) only to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only within 60 days of receipt of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. The Complainant is also at liberty to realize the same from the O.P as per Law, in case of failure by the O.P to comply the Order.

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 28th day of March, 2019 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.