Date of filing:- 18/02/2017.
Date of Order:-26/03/2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 06 of 2017.
Ramesh Kumar Panda S/o. Akshya Kumar Panda, aged about 40(forty)years, R/o-Sohela, Po/Ps:-Sohela, Dist-Bargarh ..... ..... ..... Complainant.
-:V e r s u s:-
The Proprietor, Sharma Enterprises, At- Bhatli Chowk, N.H.06, Bargarh Po/Ps/Dist:- Bargarh.
The Managing Director, Exide Industries Ltd., Exide House, 59 E Chowringhee Road, Elign, Sreepally, Bhowanipore, Kolkata,West Bengal-700020
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri M.Sahu, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Ex-parte.
For the Opposite Party No.2(two):- Sri S.K.Mahapatra, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.26/03/2018. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra, President:-
Brief facts of the case ;-
In Pursuance to the provision of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 as envisaged U/s 12 of the same the Complainant has preferred to file the case pertaining to the deficiencies of service on the part of the Opposite Parties as hereunder.
The gist of the case is that the Complainant has purchased a VL Exide Plus IP Battery bearing it’s S.L.No-A4J4D002004 4J41 and an inverter from the Opposite Party No.1(one), the Authorized dealer of the said Exide Battery and Inverter for worth of Rs. 11,600/-(Rupees eleven thousand six hundred)only, and paid an amount of Rs.9,300/-(Rupees nine thousand three hundred)only after due deduction of Rs.2,300/-(Rupees two thousand three hundred)only against an exchange of an old battery against the new one.
While using the same, the allegation of the Complainant is that the said battery started giving back up problem during the subsistence of the warranty period, as such caused much hardship to the Complainant due to non-functioning of the inverter too. As such he reported the matter before the Opposite Party No.1(one), and also made a warranty claim bearing No-NV/EX/SAM/5429906 on Dt.02.11.2016, in response he assured him to replace the same, but the case of the Complainant is that the service engineer of the Opposite Parties without examining the said Battery rejected his claim with some vague ground though it has got some inherent manufacturing defect in it.
Seeing no other alternative the Complainant served a pleader notice through his Advocate M.Sahu on Dt.25.11.2016 but the Opposite Parties did not hear, nor replaced the same which as per him amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering him with due service, thus the cause of action arose in filing the case before the Forum with a prayer to replace the said Battery and to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/-(Rupees fifteen thousand)only and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only in lieu of his mental agony undergone by him due to such action of the Opposite Parties and for litigation expenses respectively. And in support of his such claim has filed some relevant documents as follows.
Xerox Copy of the Money Receipt No.3750 Dt.14.03.2015.
Xerox Copy of rejection of warranty Claim Request No-NV/EX/SAM/5429906 Dt.02.11.2016.
Copy of the Warranty Card.
Pleader Notice Dt. 25.11.2016.
Receipt of Regd Ad bearing No-A R0486248124 and R R 0486248005 IN.
Having gone through the Complaint, it’s supporting documents and on hearing the Advocate for the Complainant the case was admitted and notice was served on the Opposite Parties, on being served with the notice the Opposite Party No.2(two) appeared before the Forum and submitted his version, and the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not appear even being sufficiently served with the notice as such he has been set ex-party.
The rival contention of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is total an evasive one, in it’s version has denied to have deficient in giving due service by immediately attending his complain but as his engineer examined the said battery and opined that the same was having no inherent manufacturing defect rather the defects has occurred due to the misuse of the same by the Complainant or for it’s being over charged and defects in the charging system, hence has contended that he has not committed unfair trade practice nor have caused deficiencies in rendering service as such has rightly rejected the claim and in addition to that has claimed to dismiss the case for devoid of merit in the same. And in support of his such Claim has relied on the following documents.
The warranty Card issued by him to the Complainant.
The report of the Service Engineer.
Having gone through the Complaint, the version and their respective documents and after hearing the counsels of both the Parties we feel it necessary to examine the following point for proper Adjudication of the case.
Whether there is un-fair trade practice and deficiencies in rendering service on the Part of the Opposite Parties ?
Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for by him ?
Firstly while considering the point as to whether the Opposite Parties have committed unfair trade practice and deficient in providing due service to the Complainant, we vividly examined the factual and legal aspect of the case with the materials available in the record, it reveals that it is an admitted facts that the Complainant has purchased the battery in question from the Opposite Party No.1(one) along with the inverter, also it has been admitted that in the battery the back-up problem has occurred to which the Complainant has made complain and has claimed before the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Party No.2(two) has repudiated the same on the basis of the report of his service engineer, but to our observation it is found that the Complainant has purchased the same battery along with the inverter for his use, so we don’t find any malicious intention with him to claim that the battery has developed with the same problem because in the absence of the same he himself would face trouble for want of the system further it is a common system that the connection of battery with the inverter is used connecting the same with the electricity connection and whenever the electricity connection fails it takes up the system working, so the contention of the Opposite Parties that it is due to overcharging is not tenable in the eye of law as an evidence furthermore the said Service Engineer has not visited the house of the Complainant to examine the charging system connected with the battery and has given an opinion sitting in his office, further to our observation the Opposite Parties has said to have examined the same by his own employed Service Engineer in the absence of the Complainant and has repudiated the claim of the Complainant on the basis of his report which creates a cloud of doubt in the mind of the Complainant and the Forum also, as such cannot be sustainable in the eye of Law.
It is also found from the warranty card issued by him along with the battery while it was purchased wherein in the service condition envisaged in point-14(fourteen) of the same clearly provided that in case of any settlement of claim reads thus; the charging system & electrical circuit of the inverter system shall be checked by the company authorized personnel or dealer before finalizing settlement of any warranty claim, which is not followed by the Opposite Parties in any manner, hence the opinion of the Service Engineer is not acceptable, hence such acts of the Opposite Parties is a hypothetical one and have tried to suppress the material facts taking advantage of the technicalities in the warranty card, which amounts to unfair trade practice, thus has also committed deficiencies in rendering service to the Complainant.
In furtherance to our observation the intentional absence of the Opposite Party No.1(one) even if being served with notice fortify our views, in view of such circumstances it is answered accordingly against the Opposite Parties.
Secondly while we examined the question as to whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief sought for by him, as we have already vividly examined the question as to whether the Opposite Parties are deficient in rendering service to the Complainant and has played unfair trade practice and have already given our views in our foregoing paragraph against the Opposite Parties. Now it is clear enough to express our views that the Complainant is obviously entitled to the claim sought for by him for which both the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable, thus the order follows.
O R D E R
Hence the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the old battery of the Complainant with a new one with same model and capacity and in the alternative in case if such model of battery is not available with them then to pay him the paid off amount of Rs.9,300/-(Rupees nine thousand three hundred)only with an interest @ 9%(nine percent) per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of Order, and also are directed to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/-(Rupees four thousand)only as compensation against the mental and physical harassment and litigation expenses caused to him and in default of which the total amount would carry an interest @ 15%(fifteen percent) per annum till the actual realization of the amount.
Accordingly the order is pronounced in the open Forum to-day i.e. On Dt.26/03/2018, in the result the complaint is allowed against the Opposite Parties and the case is disposed off.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t I agree
(Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r (w)
