BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.
Complaint Case No.303 of 2019.
Date of institution: 17.09.2019.
Date of decision:10.02.2022.
Roshan Lal aged 46 years, son of Sh. Telu Ram, r/o VPO Khanpur, Tehsil and District Kaithal.
…Complainant.
Versus
- Kedar Shiv Automobiles, Siwan Gate, Ambedkar Chowk, Kaithal, through its proprietor/partner.
- I-Power Batteries, Office at G-14, Harsha House Karampura, Commercial, New Delhi-15, through its Manager (Manufacturer of I-power battery).
….Respondents.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act
CORAM: DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.
SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Amit Sudershan, Advocate for the respondent.No.1.
Respondent No.2 exparte.
ORDER
DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT
Roshan-Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.
In nutshell, the facts of present case are that the complainant had purchased scooty Battery YOBVYKES, Yok x Plor, Model MBT+PORFEK005816, bearing 1 Power Charger No.12V26AH, controller CSK201904-1145, CSK201904-1146, CSK201904-1147, CSK201904-1148 for a sum of Rs.13,000/- on 01.06.2019. The four batteries of the said scooty are within warranty for six months from the date of purchase i.e. from 01.06.2019 to 31.12.2019. The case of complainant is that the said batteries have become defective and are not working condition and due to defect in batteries, the scooty stopped to run/ply on the road. Complainant requested the Op several times to replace the said batteries with the new one or to refund the amount of said batteries, but the Op has been postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.
2. Upon notice, the respondent No.1 appeared before this Commission, whereas respondent No.2 did not appear and opted to proceed against exparte. Op No.1 contested the complaint by filing their written version raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It has been clearly mentioned in the bill dt. 31.05.2019 that BULDGE & BREAKAGE OF BATTERIES IS NOT COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are rebutted and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. To prove his case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Anneuxre-C1 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of respondent No.1.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
6. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant had purchased scooty Battery YOBVYKES, Yok x Plor, Model MBT+PORFEK005816, bearing 1 Power Charger No.12V26AH, controller CSK201904-1145, CSK201904-1146, CSK201904-1147, CSK201904-1148 for a sum of Rs.13,000/- on 01.06.2019. It has been further argued by Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. that four batteries of the said scooty are within warranty for six months from the date of purchase i.e. from 01.06.2019 to 31.12.2019. It has been further argued that the said batteries have been become defective and are not in working condition. Due to defect in the batteries, scooty frequently stopped on the road. Complainant Roshan Lal requested the respondent to replace the said batteries with the new one or to refund the amount of batteries but the respondents postponed the matter on one pretext or the other. In amended title, respondent No.2 i.e. I-Power Batteries, Office at G-14, Harsha House Karampura, Commercial Complex, New Delhi-15, through its Manager (Manufacturer of I-power battery) is also impleaded as a party.
Since the batteries are defective and the scooty is not running on the road. Hence, the respondents No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.13,000/- i.e. cost of four batteries alongwith interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of present complaint till its realization within two months from today. In default, the respondents shall be liable to pay penal interest @ 9% p.a. Hence, the present complaint is accepted. A copy of said order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
Dt.:10.02.2022.
(Dr. Neelima Shangla)
President.
(Rajbir Singh), (Suman Rana),
Member. Member.
Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.
