Haryana

Ambala

CC/167/2013

Neha Virmani - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Navneet Gupta

23 Dec 2013

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM :  AMBALA

                             Complaint Case No.           :         167 OF 2013

                             Date of Institution                :         17-06-2013

                             Date of Decision                  :         23.12.2015

Mithun son of Sh. Gajraj, resident of village Dalipgarh, near Govt. School, P.O. Babyal, Ambala Cantt.

:::::::Complainant.

                                                                               Versus

M/s Ajanta Battery Service through its Prop./partner, shop No. 121, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt.

:::::::Opposite Party.

          Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

CORAM:             SH.A.K.SARDANA, PRESIDENT

                             SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

Present:-             Sh.Mukesh Kumar,Adv.counsel for complainant

                             OP  ex-parte.                  

O R D E R

1.           Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant purchased an automobile battery vide bill No. 9439 dated 30-12-2012 in a sum of Rs.967/- from OP with a warranty of 6 months. On the very second day of its purchase, battery in question started giving problem  and thus complainant visited OP for its checking/repairs. On checking the battery many times, OP stated that there is manufacturing defect in it and he will change the battery very soon otherwise return the amount of bill to the complainant.  So, the complainant visited again on the shop of opposite party for the change of battery with new one but opposite party neither replaced the battery nor returned the price.  In this way, the battery in question supplied by the OP was defective one and having manufacturing defect from the very beginning to which the opposite party failed to replace with a new one within the warranty period which is admittedly unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence, having no alternative, complainant preferred the present complaint seeking relief as mentioned in the prayer para.

 

2.          Upon notice, OP failed to appear before the forum despite service  and as such he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 18-12-2013. 

 

 

3.           To prove his version, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C -X alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-4 and closed his evidence.

 

4.                We have heard the complainant and gone through the case file minutely. The main grievance of the complainant is that he purchased the battery in question  on  30-12-2012  for Rs.967/- from OP  with a warranty of six months, but the battery in question became defective within the warranty period which was not rectified nor replaced by the OP despite various visits to the shop of the OP company at Ambala Cantt which is admittedly a deficiency in service on the part of OP.

5.                After hearing the complainant and going through the record, it is crystal clear from the document Annexure C-1 that the battery in question was sold by opposite party to the complainant on 30-12-2012. Further it is also not in dispute that the battery was having a warranty of six months from the date of its purchase and it became defective during the warranty period. Further the contention of complaint goes unrebutted as OP did not bother to contest the matter despite his service and as such, we have no option except to believe the version of complainant.

                   So, from the above discussed facts, we have come to the conclusion that battery sold to the complainant by the OPs  was defective from its very beginning and the same was neither rectified nor replaced by the OP  during the warranty period despite various visits of the complainant. Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by OP. Accordingly we allow the complaint and direct the OP to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-

                (i)         to return Rs.967/- i.e. cost of the battery to the complainant alongwith simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filling of complaint to till its realization.

               (ii)         to  pay  Rs. 1000/- as  compensation  for  harrasment and mental agony etc.

              (iii)          also to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation.

Let the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OP within a stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @ 12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to all the parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced:23.12.2015                                                       Sd/-                   

                                                                                  ( A.K.SARDANA)

                                                                                       PRESIDENT

                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                   ( PUSHPENDER KUMAR )

                                                                                MEMBER