Sri Subhadev Roy filed a consumer case on 13 Apr 2018 against VIRDI & SONS in the Paschim Midnapore Consumer Court. The case no is CC/125/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 26 Apr 2018.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.
Bibekananda Pramanik, President,
Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.
and
Sagarika Sarkar, Member.
Complaint Case No.125/2017
Sri Subhadev Roy, S/o-Basudev Roy, Vill-Anandnagar,
P.O.-Inda, P.S.-Kharagpur (T), Dist- Paschim Medinipur.
………..……Complainant.
Vs.
VIRDI & Sons, represented by its proprietor at
P.O.-Inda, P.S.-Kharagpur (T), Dist- Paschim Medinipur.
.....……….….Opp. Party.
For the Complainant: Mr. Somasish Panda, Advocate.
For the O.P. : Mrs. Sumana Ghosh, Advocate.
Date of filling:- 03/08/2017
Decided on : - 13/04/2018
ORDER
Pulak Kumar Singha , Member –In short the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased one exide battery worth Rs.934.50 paise on 24/03/2017 from O.P. After purchasing the said battery it was facing trouble and complainant met with O.P. alongwith the battery in question O.P. chaecked the same and found no problem. Thereafter when complainant faced same problems of his battery, he again met with the O.P. who refused to necessary check up or accept the same for replacement request, complainant send the said battery through another centre of said manufacturing company who replaced the new battery. O.P. harassed the complainant and did not give proper service as such complainant appeared before this Forum for getting relief as per prayer of his complaint.
O.P. contested the case by filing written objection denying the allegations of complainant, stating inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable, within warranty
Contd……………P/2
( 2 )
period of replacement guarantee is borne by the manufacturing company, complainant did not lodge any complain through warranty claim form before the authorized dealer of the company, O.P. has no deficiency of service and O.P. prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Decision with Reasons :
Fact of the case that complainant purchased one exide battery from O.P. and within warranty period said battery was facing some problems then complainant met with the O.P. along with the battery in question, who checked the same and told there is no problem. But after some days complainant found, said battery is facing some problems and he met with the O.P. again who refused to check or replace the battery. O.P. contested the case by filing written objection denying the allegations of complainant.
In support of his case complainant adduced evidence by filing examination-in-chief and tendered himself as PW-1 and files some xerox copies of warranty claim form, bill etc. and he was cross-examined by O.P. Complainant admitted that manufacturing company replaced by new one battery and said battery has no problem, complainant could not established by way of evidence that he deposited the disputed battery with warranty claim form to the O.P. who refused to accept, only verbal conversation was going on which has no base at all. Form the documents we find that complainant got a new battery by way of replacement from manufacturing company through another dealer of the company by way of proper procedure of the company. Dealer is the seller of the company and if any defect detected of any goods within warranty period, manufacturing company is liable to repair or replace the some. From the case record and documents we find that complainant is unable to prove by any cogent evidence,
that O.P. has deficiency of service or any negligence as such complainant is not entitled to get any relief against O.P. Moreover we find from the prayer of the complaint petition that complainant prayed for “a direction to restore the Electric connection immediately by O.P.” which is not at all related with case in hand. In fact the complainant has no prayer for relief of his complainant. In view of the discussions in fact of the case, we find that complainant has failed to prove his case and he has no prayer for getting relief of his complainant.
Thus the complaint fails.
Hence, it is,
Ordered
that complaint case be and the same is dismissed without cost.
Dictated and Corrected by me
Sd/-P.K. Singha Sd/- S. Sarkar Sd/-B. Pramanik.
Member Member President
District Forum
Paschim Medinipur
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.