BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 36 of 2015
Date of Institution : 16.2.2015
Date of Decision : 29.9.2016
Om Parkash son of Shri Prem Ram, aged about 55 years, resident of village and post office Kasumbi, Tehsil and District Sirsa (Haryana).
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Tudor India Limited, Registered office & Plant: Plot No.10-1, Kamalpur, N.H. No.8, Prantij-383205, Distt. Sabarkantha, Gujrat, through its manager/ Incharge.
2. Shri Ram Enterprises, near Parshu Ram Chowk, Sirsa, through its Proprietor Gurdev Singh Arora.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA…………………PRESIDENT
SH. RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL ………… ……MEMBER.
Present: Sh.J.S. Beniwal, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Rajesh Rana, representative on behalf of opposite party no.1.
Smt. Pushpa Mehta, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
ORDER
Brief facts of the complaint are that complainant purchased two batteries of inverter bearing serial No. 28311118D26561 and 28311114D20726 from op no.1. on 8.3.2013 vide cash memo No.590 on payment of Rs.20,000/-. The complainant was given two years of guarantee/ warranty at the time of purchase of these batteries by op no.2 on behalf of op no.1. However, the batteries are not working for the last about five months and same are lying like show piece. The complainant had tried to contact with the op no.2 but his shop was found closed and his whereabouts could not be known to the complainant and even the complaint centre of op no.1 was also found closed. Ultimately, the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 9.1.2015 upon op no.1 to replace the said batteries with new one but op no.1 has refused to do so about a week back. The complainant has suffered harassment due to act of the ops, as such he is also entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- and also litigation expenses besides replacement of batteries. Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement asserting therein that said batteries have been sold to M/s North Marketing Gurgaon on 12.4.2012 by op no.1. As per complainant’s allegation he purchased batteries on 8.3.2013 from op no.2 but they have not received any copy of purchase invoice as well as warranty card to verify warranty period as well as date of purchase etc. for warranty claim settlement. The warranty expiry date is either 7.3.2015 (for 24 months warranty) or 7.9.2014 (for 18 months warranty model) from customer purchase date if same is considered as 8.3.2013. The op no.1 has also not received any complaint or query from complainant side before this complaint.
3. OP no.2 in his separate written statement has averred that complainant had purchased the batteries on 8.3.2012 from him against price of Rs.17,000/-, but the contents regarding the closer of shop/firm of op no.2 are totally false. The complainant and op no.2 both are native of same village and complainant frequently visits the shop of op no.2. The op no.2 had given one year guarantee as per invoice and the complainant never approached to the op no.2 within guarantee period and even till filing of complaint, he had not made any complaint regarding his grievances. The complainant himself has disclosed that the batteries are not working since last five months meaning thereby that the batteries worked properly for about 21 months.
4. By way of evidence, the complainant has tendered his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C21 to Ex.C6. On the other hand, ops have tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R5.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file carefully.
6. The complainant has alleged to have purchased two batteries from op no.2 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- but from the copy of invoice No.590 dated 8.3.2013 Ex.C4 it is evident that the batteries were purchased for a sum of Rs.17,000/-. Although the op no.2 has claimed that warranty of the batteries was for one year and this fact was mentioned by him at the copy of invoice itself, but from the copy of warranty card Ex.C3, it is evident that the batteries in question carry warranty of two years. However, there is nothing on record to show that the batteries in question are not working properly and complainant made any complaint in this regard to ops. The plea taken by complainant that shop of op no.2 has been closed is also belied by op no.2 by way of documentary evidence i.e. copy of income tax return acknowledgment for the year 2015-2016 Ex.R1 which shows that op no.2 is carrying its business on the same address. The complainant has purchased the batteries on 8.3.2013 and got served legal notice upon op no.1 i.e. manufacturer only on 9.1.2015 when the warranty period of the batteries was to be lapsed. If there was any defect in the batteries within warranty period, the complainant should have approached op no.2 who could have examined the batteries and could get redressed the grievance of the complainant but he has taken almost false stand that shop of op no.2 has been closed. The complainant could get examined the batteries from any other expert/mechanic, but the complainant has failed to do so and now the batteries in question have become out of warranty.
7. Resultantly, the present complaint stands dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own cost. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:29.9.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Member. Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
