Orissa

Debagarh

CC/56/2020

Judhistir Dash, aged about 69 years, S/O-Late Rabinarayan Dash - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Subash Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

06 Nov 2021

ORDER

IN THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DEOGARH.

C.C NO- 56/2020

Present-Sri Dipak Kumar Mahapatra, President, Smt. Arati Das, Member.

Judhistir Dash, aged about 69 years,

S/O-Late Rabinarayan Dash,

At-Lalusahi, PO/PS/Dist-Deogarh.                                               …         Complainant.

                                                                        -Versus-

1.         The proprietor,

            Subash Enterprises,

            At/-Sasan Sahi, Ward No-2,

            PO/PS/Dist-Deogarh.         

2.         The Branch Head,

            Exide Battery Claim Office,

            NH-6, Highway Road Gopal Pali Chowk,

            Remed, Sambalpur, Odisha-768006.                                …         O.Ps.

DATE OF HEARING : 05.11.2021, DATE OF ORDER : 06.11.2021

SRI DIPAK KUMAR MAHAPATRA,PRESIDENT:- Brief facts of the case is that, the Complainant has stated that he has purchased a battery for his Scooty Hero Pleasure in September 2019 from the O.P-1 Subash Enterprises at Sasan sahi which was get out of order very soon.  As per his direction the Complainant deposited the said defective battery at the shop of the O.P-1 but he did not provide any battery to its substitution for a long time. But after some months he gave another battery which was also a damaged one.  On asking about the defective battery the O.P-1 agued with the Complainant and misbehaved him.  But thereafter the O.P-1 provided a second hand battery from his own Active Scooty in aggressive mood and insulted the Complainant such a way that the Complainant kept the said battery at the shop of the O.P-1 and left the place.  The Complainant purchased a new battery from other shop which is running properly without any problem. After some days the Complainant received a message on his mobile from the company that his claim has been accepted and requested me to collect the new battery from the Dealer. But when the Complainant reached to the Dealer he told that he has already given a new battery to the Complainant earlier. The Complainant states that the O.P-1 provided him a TZ-4 battery instead of TZ-5 which troubled him a lot.  Again the O.P-1 handed over a delivery challan on dtd.25.05.2020 with a issued date of 19.03.2020 which presumed to be forged one as it has no link with the battery as per the message of the company. Hence the O.P-1 has committed Deficiency in service to the Complainant. The O.P-2 has been impleaded as a party to this case because of the manufacturer of the above battery which is being sold through the O.P-1.

The O.P-1 & 2, despite of service of notice they did not bother to appear before this Commission thus challenging the allegations made by the Complainant. So taking it in to consideration as “IT IS A YEAR OLD CASE”, this Commission has rightly decided to dispose the case as well setting the O.P-1 & 2 as ex-parte in this case. Hence hearing conducted exparte under Rule-6 of Order-9 of Civil Procedure Code.

POINTS OF DETERMINATION:-

1. Whether the Complainant is comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act-2019?
2. Whether the O.Ps has committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant?

        From the above discussion and materials available on records we inferred that the Complainant comes under the purview of Consumers as he has purchased a new Battery for his Scooty from the O.P-1 dealer at Deogarh on payment of consideration amount. It is the O.Ps to provide after sales services but neglected the purchaser/consumer/Complainant when he faced certain defects in the said battery after using the same for some months. But despites several visits to the O.P-1, he could not get it repaired being the Authorised service centre and unable to provided required after sale services to the Complainant though the battery was within warranty period. The O.P-1 has neglected to provide necessary after sale services and shifted the burden to the manufacturer (O.P-2). But OPs were at least required to repair it. Neither they repaired it properly nor did they replace the defective battery to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. This matter has been well settled in the case of “Pallavi vs. Apple India Pvt. Ltd.” decided by the State Consumer  Disputes Redressal Commission ,Punjab , Chandigarh on 7^th  September, 2017.Hence the O.P-1 have committed “Deficiency in Service”  u/s-2(11) of Consumer Protection Act-2019, by not providing proper services to the Complainant. Hence we order as under:-                                       

                                                                                                  ​ORDER

The Complaint petition is allowed. The O.P-1 is directed to pay Rs. 2,500/-(Rupees Two Thousand five hundred) as compensation and cost of litigation. All the above orders are to be carried out within 30 (Thirty) days of receiving of this order, failing which, the complainant is at liberty to proceed in due process of law.     

            Order pronounced in the open Court today i.e, on 6^th day of November-2021 under my hand and seal of this Commission.

Office is directed to supply copies of the Order to the party free of costs receiving acknowledgement of the delivery thereof.

I agree,                                                                                             

MEMBER.                                                                                                      PRESIDENT.

                                                Dictated and Corrected

                                                          By me.

                                                     PRESIDENT.