Delhi

North

CC/127/2017

PURSHOTAM GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHOK - Opp.Party(s)

10 Dec 2024

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

Consumer Complaint No. 127/2017

In the matter of

Purushottam Goyel

S/o Late Sh.Syam Lal Goyel

R/o-2-UA, Jawahar Nagar

Delhi-110007                                                                           …Complainant

Versus

Ashok         

Proprietor M/s Rajat Battery & M/s. Ashok Batteries

SN-32, Shop No.5, Shree Nagar Colony

Near Shakti Nagar Extension

Delhi-110052                                                                            ...Opposite Party

 

ORDER
10/12/2024

Ms.Harpreet Kaur Charya, Member

The present complaint has been filed by Sh. Purushottam Goyel, the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Sh. Ashok, Proprietor of M/s Rajat Battery & Ashoka Batteries with the allegations of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.

1. Briefly stated the fact of the present complaint are, on 07/10/2016, the complainant purchased a car battery for his Hyundai Accent Car from OP for which an invoice No.1192 for Rs.2,150/- was issued.
2. It has been alleged by the complainant that he was assured by OP that the said battery was covered under one year warranty and in case of any defect the same would be replaced promptly free of cost.
3. Within few weeks, there was problem in the battery and the complainant could not start his car due to the defective battery.  On 24/11/2016, the complainant approached OP for replacement, where, OP insisted that the battery had to be left with the OP for checking the defect and asked him to come on the next day.
4. On 25/11/2016, OP informed the complainant that there was charging issue with the battery and after recharging the battery the said issue was resolved and asked the complainant to pay Rs.100/- for recharging. This was objected by the complainant on the ground that the battery was under warranty and he is not required to pay any charges. 
5. The complainant has alleged that OP was not only rude but also told the complainant that he will not handover the battery unless Rs.100/- are paid.  The complainant being left with no other option was compelled to pay Rs.100/-.  Alleging act of OP as unfair trade practice and deficiency in services causing severe mental torture, agony harassment and financial loss, hence, the present complaint.
6. The complainant has prayed for direction to OP to refund Rs.100/-, compensation of Rs.10,000/- on account of deficiency in services and mental agony.  The complainant has annexed the copy of the receipt dated 07/10/21016 and copy of receipt dated 25/11/2016 with the complaint.
7. Notice of the present complaint was issued to OP.  Thereafter, written statement was filed.
8.   OP has raised several preliminary objections such as; there is no cause of action against the answering OP as he is not the proprietor of M/s Rajat Battery; the complaint is not maintainable on ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party;  the necessary party is Sparco Company, the manufacturer of the battery; the present complaint is an abuse and misuse of process of law as the complainant had not come to the forum with clean hands  by suppressing the material facts from the forum; the complaint is false and frivolous.
9. Sale of  battery manufactured by Sparco Company on 07/10/2016 is admitted.  The OP had asked to produce the warranty card issued by the company to be shown to the representative of the company but the same was not produced by the complainant.  
10. It has been denied that the complainant has paid Rs.2,150/-.  In fact only Rs.2,000/- were paid by the complainant with the promise to pay Rs.150/-later on.  It has been denied that there is any defect in the battery, in fact the Alternator of the car of the complainant was not charging properly.  It has been denied that the battery failed after two week as it was defective.
11. It has further been denied that the complainant had approached 24/11/2016 for replacement.  It was the driver of the complainant who had come without any warranty card or bill.  It has also been denied that the battery was left with OP.  It has been admitted that Rs.100/- were charged by Ashoka Batteries for recharging. The battery was discharged /down due to loose belt of the Alternator.  Rest of the contents of the complaint have also been denied with the prayer for dismissing the complaint with cost.
12. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, reiterating the contents of his complaint. He has got exhibited the copy of the receipt dated 07/10/2016 as Ex.CW1/1 and copy of the receipt for Rs.100/- dated 25/11/2016 as Ex.CW1/2.
13. OP has also filed evidence by way of affidavit reiterating the contents of his written statement.
14. We have heard the arguments of both the parties and have perused the material placed on the record. The complainant has alleged that OP charged Rs.100/- for recharging the battery despite the fact that it was within the warranty period.
15. It is seen that the complainant purchased that battery on 07/10/2016 and he had to visit OP on 24/11/2016 with the complaint of battery dead which is within almost 07 weeks from the date of purchase.
16. Dealing with preliminary objections by OP. Firstly, OP has stated that he is not the proprietor of ‘Rajat Battery’. It is seen that Ex.CW-1/1, invoice bears the signature of ‘Ashok’ i.e. OP.  Thus, even if OP is not the proprietor of Rajat Battery but he has sold the battery to the complainant.  Secondly, this complaint is with respect to the charging of Rs.100/- by OP, thus, manufacturer is not the necessary party in the present complaint.  Further, during the pendency of the complaint, complainant has also not complained of defect in the battery.
17. OP has also stated that complainant did not pay the full amount of Rs.2,150/-; there was balance of Rs.150/-.  It is pertinent to see that Ex.CW1/1, invoice has been issued by OP for Rs.2,150/- and bears his signature also.  OP cannot dispute that the complainant has not paid full consideration. This is mere a  frivolous defence, once a receipt of full amount has been issued OP is estopped from disputing the invoice .
18. Ex.CW1/2 is the receipt dated 24/11/2016 for Rs.100/- charged by OP.  It is highly improbable that the battery which is under warranty will have charging problem within first 02 months of purchase. OP has placed on record the sample warranty terms and conditions of ‘Speed up battery’, ‘Altima battery’ and ‘Sparco Battery’ to show that the recharging of battery is chargeable as per standard practice.  However, we will confine ourselves to the terms and conditions of the ‘Sparco battery’, the battery in question, as complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the battery purchased by him. We have gone through terms and conditions of the warranty card.  No where, it has been mentioned that the recharging of battery is subject to payment/chargeable basis. Thus, by charging Rs.100/-, OP has indulged in deficiency in services and unfair trade practice.
19. It will not be out of context that complainant has been repeatedly reiterating that it is not the question of Rs.100/- charged by OP, but it is the matter of principle. Same was reiterated during the course of arguments by the complainant.
20.  Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and in the interest of justice, we direct OP to:-

1. Refund Rs.100/- to the complainant charged on account of battery recharge.
2. Deposit Rs.5,000/-  in “State Consumer Welfare Fund (L/Aid), SBI Account No.00000010310544717, IFSC No.SBIN0001187 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and file compliance report before this commission on  10/03/2025.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

 

 

 

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)            Member

(Ashwani Kumar Mehta)                          Member   (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)           President