DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: BHADRAK
Dated the 8th day of December, 2017
C.D Case No. 114 of 2015
Md. Abdun Nabi
S/o: Late Hanifur Reheman
At: Banka Sahi
Po/Ps: Bhadrak (T)
Dist: Bhadrak
……………………. Complainant
(Versus)
1. Mrs. Sabita Rani Dhal
Prop- Lucky Traders
Naya Bazar
Dist: Bhadrak
2. M/S Southern Batteries Pvt. Ltd.
Plot No. 328
Jigani- Bommasandra Link Road
Jigani Industrial Area, Annekal Taluk
Bangalore- 562106
3. Sunil Electronics
Prop- Sunil Kumar Chand
Near Hare Krushna Balaram Ladge
At: Bonth Chhack
Po/Ps/Dist: Bhadrak
…………………………..Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: H. Dhal & Others
For the OP No. 1: Sri B. Jena & Others
For the OP No. 2: Mr. Jogendra Prasad Das
For the OP No. 3: In person
Date of hearing: 21.03.2017
Date of order: 08.12.2017
SRI RAGHUNATH KAR, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint against the O.Ps in respect of the deficiency of service caused by them against the complainant is to the effect that the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps.
Complainant purchased a battery & an inverter from the OP No. 1 Rs 19,900/- vide receipt No. 1127 on 14.06.2012. The invoice vide No. 1127 in annexed here is Annexure- 1. As soon as the said battery & inverter were delivered to the complainant. The OP No. 1 issued one guaranty card which is annexed as Annexure- 2 after two years of running the inverter & the battery suffered from technical defects. Despite regular servicing check he did not keep charge even from 15 minutes. The complainant complained before the OP No. 1 a setting out him about the mal functioning the inverter & battery. The OP No. 1 received the battery & replied that it need the charging. In the next day the OP No. 1 returned the battery to the complainant. The battery performed a little batter but after few months in January 2015 it again shoed the same problem. The OP No. 1 received the battery & returned the same 3 days after charging but in this time the battery did not performed batter. So the complainant claimed for a replacement because at that time the warranty in force. The OP No. 1 said that he had asked for one Bikram Keshori Jena, a company person for infection the batteries. He assured to the complainant to call for him at the arrival of the Mr. Jena but the OP No. 1 did not inform to the complainant anything till the last of the month of February 2015. The complainant used to visit the workshop of the OP No. 1 in quest of the company person.
On 04.03.2015 a vigilance red was conducted in house of the OP No. 1. The OP No. 1 closed her workshop till July 2015. Finding no other way the complainant asked for replacement of the battery to B. K Jena in his mobile. But he did not take any step for replacement of the batteries. Mr. J. P Das the representative of OP No. 2 informed to the complainant that the dealership of OP No. 1 has been cancel by the company, he directed to the complainant that he should place the battery before the OP No. 3 who has been entrusted to the OP No. 3. Till now the said battery is with the OP No. 3. When the complainant enquired the matter to the OP No. 3 he replied that the warranty has been expired since 14.06.2015. Having harassed the O.Ps the complainant has been compiled to take shelter under this Forum for redressal.
The complainant has sought for the reliefs of:-
(a) The O.Ps be directed to refund of Rs 14,900/- to the complainant as the cost of batteries.
(b) The O.Ps be further directed to pay 18% interest per annum to the complainant.
(c) They may also be directed to pay Rs 15,000/- to the complainant for mental agony & harassment.
(d) They may also be directed to pay Rs 2,000/- as cost of the litigation to the complainant.
The documents filed by the complainant (Xerox copies):-
1. Invoice issued on 14.06.2012.
2. Warranty card issued by M/s Southern Battery Pvt. Ltd.
3. Postal AD on dt. 27.11.2015.
The OP No. 1 has filed his written version dining the allegations made by the complainant against him. He has also denied there is no cause of action of this complaint. He has also denied because there is no deficiency of service caused by the OP No. 1. The complaint is barred by limitation.
He has also admitted that the complainant has purchased the inverter & battery for the shop of the OP No. 1 on 14.06.2012 & the complaint has been filed after the expire warranty period that is on 30.10.2015. The OP No. 1 is not responsible for the loss & damaged caused to the complainant because the complaint has been filed for lapse of the warranty period. Hence he has sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
The OP No. 2 has filed the written version admitting that the para No. 1 of the complaint is true. He has denied the averments para No. 3 as well as he has challenged the para No. 2 of the complaint. The averments made by the para No. 4 & 5 of the complainant are admitted by the OP No. 2. It further denied by the OP No. 2 that he is neither the manufacturer nor the supplier the inverter. It is further denied by the OP No. 2 is that the averments made in the para No. 6 are false & fabricated & denied. The approaches made by the complainant to the OP No. 2 on 18.07.2015 is beyond the limitation of warranty period. Hence the proceeding is not maintainable & dismissible. The OP No. 2 has filed some documents such as:-
1. Extract from the minutes of the board meeting of the company held on 23.11.2015. Xerox copy
2. Representation to the OP No. 2 made on behalf of the complainant on dt. July-18-2015. 2 sheets
The OP No. 3 has filed the written version as follows such as the OP No. 3 has challenged the maintainability of this complaint, there is no cause of action, the proceeding is beyond the jurisdiction of this Forum. The OP No. 3 has also challenged that the proceeding is barred by the limitation & mis-joinder of necessary parties and other discrepancies. In facts the averment made in the complaint partly wrong & partly true. The shop of the OP No. 2 having name & fame in the town & the shop deals with electronic items battery etc. The shop has been issued acknowledgement card receiving of the smooth transaction of business, transparency & for benefit of the consumer, article for repairing removes defect in same articles. The present OP is neither the dealer nor the manufacturer. The dispute between the complainant & the manufacturer, the OP No. 3 has no role in present case. The complainant has neither filed any report of testing laborites listed by the Govt., nor export opinion regarding the defective item. Hence the OP No. 3 has sought for the relief of dismissal of the case. The OP No. 3 has undertaken to file all his relevant documents at the time of hearing of this case but he has failed to do so.
OBSERVATION
We have perused the complaint and the documents filed by complainant as well as we have perused written versions of all the O.Ps respectively relevant document filed by them. The complainant has purchased an inverter & a battery on 14.06.2012 as per invoice. The said battery was cost of Rs 19,900/-. The OP No.1 was the dealer & he had sold the battery to the complainant. It is clearly manifested from the warranty card that the said warranty was conformed for 36 months from the date of selling of the article. In this case in the month of January 2015 almost after two & half years passed, the defect was found in the said battery. The complainant took the battery to the OP No. 1 for repairing the same. The battery was repaired by the OP No. 1 & worked a little batter. After few months the battery showed the same problem. The said battery was returned to the OP No. 1 & it was charged for 2 & 3 days but no development was there. The complainant informed this matter to the OP No. 1 in the month of February but he could not be traced out & no communication could be possible with him. On 04.03.2015 the vigilance raided the house of the OP No. 1 so the shop was closed neither the complainant nor her husband could be available in there shop as the same was closed. One Mr. J. P Das infirmed to the complainant that the dealership was canceled with the OP No. 1 & the OP No. 3 has taken new dealership. When the OP No. 3 was informed about this matter, he instructed to the complainant to deposit the battery with him. The complainant had done so the said battery is with the OP No. 3 at present. The OP No. 3 is replying to the complainant nothing can be done because the warranty period has been lapsed.
The complainant has informed to the OP No. 1 within two & half months after the purchasing of the battery. The cause of action has been stated from then & there. It is clearly mentioned that two & half years has been passed when the battery sowed the defect. It is well proved that at the time of defect was found in the battery no warranty period was lapsed because the warranty period was 36 months from the date of purchasing. So it is well proved that at the time of initiation office case the warranty period & the limitation were exiting.
The complainant has impleaded in necessary parties. The OP No. 3 was impleaded the necessary parties in this case. When the dealership was canceled with the OP No. 1 & was again made with the OP No. 3, the complainant also made the OP No. 3 as the party to this case because the burden lies upon him. So this case can never fail non-joinder & mis-joinder of necessary parties.
At the time of purchasing of the inverter & battery from the OP No. 1 the complainant was delivered the warranty card for 36 months regarding the transaction. As the warranty could not be sustained till the assured time, as the complainant has informed the OP again & again to repair, to replace, to provide a new battery to the complainant but the OP No. 3 did not reply & he has kept the said battery with him till now. It is clearly evident that the O.Ps have caused deficiency of service has been caused against the complainant. Hence it is ordered;
- ORDER
The complaint is and the same be allowed on contest. The OP No. 1 & 2 are here by directed to deliver a new battery to the complainant replacing the old one. The O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment to the complainant. As well as the said O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs 2,000/- to the complainant for cost of the litigation. These orders shall be carried out within 30 days on receipt of the same.
This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this day of 8th December, 2017 under my hand and seal of the Forum.
