This is application u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The subject matrix of the instant case is that the complainant has purchased Amaron Battery of amara Raja batteries Limited on 25.01.2012 from the opp. Party No-1 vide Bill No-2781 dated 27.01.2012. the costs of the Invertors and battery was Rs. 3,500/- (Rs. Three thousand five hundred only). As per the terms and conditions the battery has got three years warranty. For ten months or so the battery worked smoothly but thereafter from the month of November, 2014 the battery started giving trouble and thereafter it is not functioning since February, 2014. The complainant has several times requested the Opp. Parties to replace the battery by new battery but the Opp. Parties did not heed to his request. The battery sold by the Opp. Parties is defective. The complainant is the consumer of the Opp. Parties and the acts of the Opp. Parties amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant prayed this forum to directed the Ops as under :
i). To repay the amount of the Amaaron Battery set worth of Rs. 3,500/-
ii). Pay towards damage and cost worth Rs. 26.500/-
iii). To pass any other order as the Hon’ble Forum deems fir and proper in the interest of justice.
Despite notice the Opposite parties neither appeared nor filed their written version. Hence the Ops were set ex-parte.
Decision with reasons
Heard the complainant is course of hearing. Perused the pleading and gone through the record carefully. Further, despite notice and ample opportunities, the Ops did not choose to file their counter version in this case. We feel that the version of the complainant can not be disbelieved as there was no averment to the contrary or any evidence adduced by the Opp. Parties in rebuttal. Since the Opp. Parties did not file any counter to the version of the complainant, we feel that the version of the complainant can not be disbelieved as there was no averment to the contrary or any evidence adduced by the Opp. Parties in rebuttal. It appears that the claim of the claimant is admitted by the Opposite Parties. We have come across a decision delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, reported in 1992 (2) Civil Court Cases page-91 S.C. in case titled Vidya Dhar Versus Munkif Rao & Another, wherein the Hon’ble Court held if a party did not adduce any evidence in rebuttal, then adverse inference should drawn against the party for not rebutting the evidence. We are fortified by a decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in the matter of Fiat India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dr. Zahid Hussain Gillari and others reported in 2003 CTJ 953(CP) wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that “it is well settled that where the averments made in the complaint are un-rebutted, the presumption is that the averments are true and correct”.
Keeping in view the above referred case laws, which are applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case, we have come to the conclusion that complaint is tenable. We find that the OP No. 3&4 are being the manufacturer of the said battery and the warranty condition rests upon the manufacturer, the OP 3&4 are deficient in service and committed unfair trade practice in this case for which the complainant is entitled to the relief. Hence, it is ordered that :-
ORDER
The O.Ps.- 3 & 4 who are jointly and severally liable are directed to refund the price value of the battery to the complainant and they are further directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and Rs. 1,000/- (rupees One thousand) as cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in default, the Opposite Parties are liable to pay Rs. 50/-per day till its realization.
In default, the complainant is at liberty to put the decree in execution.
Let copies be supplied to the parties as per rules.
Delivered in the open forum on this 29th September, 2014.
