Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant had purchased the battery duly manufactured by OP No.2 from OP No.1 on payment of due consideration. It is alleged that the warranty period for the battery was for one year and after 11 months of marriage the battery being defective stopped functioning. The battery was brought to the notice of OP No.1 who expressed his inability to render any service as the battery suffers from inherent manufacturing defect. Then the complainant informed the customer care centre of OP No.2 but no result came. Therefore, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP no.1 was set ex-parte. OP No.2 filed written version denying the entire allegation.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned
District Forum has passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxxx xxxxxxx
“Keeping in view the above referred case laws, we have come to the conclusion that complaint is tenable. Accordingly, we hereby allow the present complaint with direction to the opposite party No.2 either to replace the batter in question with a brand new battery or refund the cost of the battery and also to pay Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) only as compensation towards mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant. The OP No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees One thousand) only to the complainant as cost of the litigation expenses.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the Opposite party are liable to pay Rs.50/- per day of delay till its realization.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the OP No.2 has neither contacted with the complainant nor OP No.1. He submitted that no expert opinion has been filed. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal. He submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is well settled in law that the complainant has to prove his case and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant has proved the money receipt dtd.02.05.2013 showing the purchase of battery by the complainant from OP No.1. The warranty for the battery shows that it is upto 30 months in case of the battery M-30MRM640 which is purchased by the complainant. It is clearly found from the warranty that if the defect is found but reason 0 to 18 months, there would be free replacement subject to condition in the warranty. Now the complainant has proved that he has purchased the battery with warranty card. Since, the OP has been set ex-parte the entire submission of the complainant in the complaint has to be relied on. The evidence affidavit has been filed by OP No.2 where the allegation is simply denied. But they never challenged about manufacturing defect or defect in the battery.
9. In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the impugned order is quite correct and nothing to interfere with it. It is affirmed the entire order should be complied within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the OP is to pay Rs.200/- per day from the date of impugned order till realization instead of Rs.50/- per day as ordered by the learned District Forum.
The Appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
