BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM AT KHAMMAM
Dated this, the 25th day of March, 2009

CORAM: 1. Sri. K.V. Kaladhar, B.Sc., B.L., Senior Member/ i/c.President
2. Smt. V. Vijaya Rekha, B.Sc. B.L., Member

C.C. No.78/2008
Between:
Gudala Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Nagarbushanam, age: 50 years, occu: Singareni
Employee, R/o.Q.No.DA-546, Babu Camp, Kothagudem, Khammam District.

... Complainant
And
Rakesh Agarwal, age: 55 years, occu: Business, M/s.Archana Enterprises, Shop No.4325,
Opp. R.T.C.Busstand, Kothagudem town.
... opposite Party.

This C.C came before us for final hearing the complainant appeared in person; notice of opposite party served and called absent; upon perusing the material papers on record; and upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-

ORDER
(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Senior Member/ i/c. President)
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant had purchased a two wheeler battery 2-5LB for Rs.550/- from opposite party on 28-9-2007 and gave the warranty for one year. After some time the battery was not working, the same was informed to the opposite party by him, by showing the warranty card of the battery, but the opposite party negligently replied to his request. In this regard, the complainant had issued a legal notice on 29-8-2008. Having received the notice, the opposite party has not given reply to the notice or has not repaired the battery. The opposite party is having automobile shop and selling duplicate and substandard material to the customers. Hence, the complaint to direct the opposite parties to change the battery with a new one or to repay the cost of battery and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards damages to the complainant.
3. After registered the C.C., this forum issued a notice on 14-11-2008 to the opposite party and the same was served on 21-11-2008 and the said case stands posed to 10-12-2008 for appearance of the opposite party. On 10-12-2008 the complainant did not appear and again the case is stands posted to 30-12-2008 for enquiry. Even on 30-12-2008 the opposite party called absent.
4. On behalf of the complainant, he filed affidavit along with the following documents and the same were marked as Exs.A.1 to A.3.
Ex.A.1 - Warranty card of the battery
Ex.A.2 - Legal notice, dt.39-8-2008
Ex.A.3 - Acknowledgment.
5. Upon perusing the material papers on record, the point that arose for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled as prayed in the complaint?
Point:
6. It is the contention of the complainant that he purchased a battery on 28-9-2007 for his two wheeler vehicle for Rs.550/- model No.2-5LB from the shop of oppsotie party. After some time, the battery was not working, the same was informed to the opposite party, but he did not respond, in this regard, the complainant gave a legal notice on 29-8-2008. Having received the notice, the opposite party has not given any reply or has not repaired the batter. It is also the contention of the complainant that the opposite party gave one year warranty for the above said battery.
7. Having received the notice, the opposite party did not appear before this forum. Upon perusing Ex.A.1, warranty card terms and conditions, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to repair the battery as the defect is a manufacture defect.
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to give new battery of the model No.2-5LB to the complainant or to pay Rs.550/- towards costs of the battery and also directing the opposite party to pay Rs.300/- towards costs of this litigation. There is no order for damages.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum on this 25th day of March, 2009.