Punjab

Faridkot

CC/18/148

Surinder Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Grover Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Paramjeet Singh

25 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         148 of 2018

Date of Institution :     12.09.2018

Date of Decision :        25.09.2019

Surinder Kaur aged about 65 years widow of Ajit Singh  r/o Shaheed Balwinder Singh Nagar, Faridkot.

   .....Complainant

Versus

1. Owner Grover Enterprises, Dealer Invertor Battery, 24 Nehru Complex Shopping Complex, Faridkot.
2. Manufacturing of Su-kam Battery /Su-kam Power Systems Ltd. Plot No.54, Udyog Vihar, Ph.VI, Sec-37, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001.

......Ops

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President.

Smt Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Paramjit Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,

 Sh Naresh Grover, Proprietor on behalf of OP-1,

 OP-2 Exparte.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal , President)

                                             Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OP seeking directions to OP to replace the defective battery with new one of

cc no.-148 of 2018

same model and for further directing them to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses.

2                                             Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on assurance of OP-1 regarding good quality of invertor battery manufactured by OP-2, deceased husband of complainant purchased one battery make Sukam Big worth Rs.12,3000/- from OP-1 against bill no.576 dated 14.01.2015 and it was having guarantee/warrantee for four years and at the time of purchasing the same, Ops also assured to remove the defect if any occurs, during the period of guarantee and warrantee. It is submitted that said battery worked well for 8-9 months, but thereafter, it stopped charging. Complainant reported the matter to OPs and on her request, mechanics of OPs repaired the same, but they could not remove the defect. Winters commenced and there was no need for charging the said battery and during next summers, said battery gave her great trouble and complainant and her family had to suffer in hot peak hours of summers. Complainant made several requests to OPs to repair the said battery or to replace the same. They assured to replace the defective battery, but till now, they have not done anything needful. Complainant made several requests to OPs to replace the said battery, but they failed to redress her grievance. Even legal notice got served upon OPs by complainant through her counsel, also served no purpose. All this act and conduct of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on

cc no.-148 of 2018

their part and has caused huge harassment and mental agony to her. Complainant has prayed for directions to Ops to replace the said defective battery and also prayed for compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her besides cost of litigation. Hence, the complaint.

3                                                   Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 18.09.2018, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

 4                                          OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint in hand is not maintainable in present form as complainant has filed the present complaint on false allegations. OP-1 have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect but admitted before the Forum that husband of complainant purchased the said battery from them on 14.01.2015. It is averred that as per terms given  on warranty card, free warranty is available for 36 months and thereafter from 36-42 months, the battery is replaceable by paying 75% of battery charges and during 42-48 months, the battery is replaceable by paying 80% of total costs of battery. It is asserted that till today, complainant never made any complaint regarding functioning of battery. It is also denied that any employee of answering OP ever repaired the battery in question. All the allegations levelled by complainant are false, frivolous and concocted ones. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

cc no.-148 of 2018

5                                          Notice issued to OP-2 through registered cover not received back. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. OP-2 deemed to be served but none appeared on behalf of OP-2 on date fixed and after repeated calls till 4.00 p.m., when no body appeared for OP-2 either in person or through counsel, then, vide order dated 1.05.2019, OP-2 was proceeded against exparte.                        

6                                           Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to 6 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                          To controvert the allegations of complainant, OP-1 himself tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex OP-1/1 and documents Ex OP-1/2 to Ex OP-1/4 and closed the evidence.

8                                                 We have heard the ld counsel for parties and have carefully gone through the evidence and documents placed on record by respective parties.

9                                            After careful observation of the record placed on file and evidence led by parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that her deceased husband purchased the battery in question from OP-1 against proper bill with  four year warranty.  After some time, it stopped charging, but OPs could not remove the defect from it. Complainant made several requests to OPs to repair the said battery or

cc no.-148 of 2018

to replace the same, but they did not pay any heed to her requests and did not do anything needful. Now, grievance of complainant is that despite several repeated requests, OPs have failed to repair or replace the same, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. All this has caused harassment and inconvenience to her. She has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply,  OP-1 stressed mainly on the point that as per terms of warranty card, free warranty is available for 36 months and thereafter from 36-42 months, the battery is replaceable by paying 75% of battery charges and during 42-48 months, the battery is replaceable by paying 80% of total costs of battery. OP-1 asserted that complainant never approached them regarding any defect in said battery and they have never repaired the same. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.  OP-2 is exparte and there is no rebuttal from their side.

10                                     To prove his pleadings, ld counsel for complainant has placed on record copy of bill dated 14.01.2015 Ex C-6 that proves the fact that her deceased husband purchased the said battery having four years warranty from OP-1 for Rs.12,300/- and she is the consumer of OPs. Ex C-4 copy of legal notice served upon by complainant to OPs further proves her pleadings that she made requests to Ops to repair or replace the said battery as it did not work properly during the guarantee period. through her affidavit Ex C-1 complainant has narrated her grievance which OPs failed to redress. Documents Ex C-2

cc no.-148 of 2018

and ExC-3 are original photographs of said invertor battery, which are self explanatory as bare perusal of these documents makes it crystal clear that said invertor battery was having warranty for 48 months i.e for full four years and as it stopped functioning during warranty period and caused trouble to complainant in hot peak summar months. Act of OPs in not making replacement of said invertor battery amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence to prove his case and all the documents placed on record by him are authentic and are beyond any doubt. It is observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 in not providing effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant by making replacement of said invertor battery. Had OP-2 resolved the issue regarding replacement of defective invertor battery in the beginning, complainant would not have filed the present complaint.

11                                            From above discussion, this Forum is of considered opinion that OP-2 has failed to provide effective services upto the satisfaction of complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP-2. Therefore, complaint in hand is hereby allowed against OP-2 with direction to it to replace the said defective battery with new one of same model with fresh warranty subject to submission of old defective battery by complainant to OP-2. OP-2 is further directed to pay Rs.2,000/-to complainant as consolidated compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her as well as

cc no.-148 of 2018

for litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. OP-1 is mere shopkeeper who sold the said invertor battery to the deceased husband of complainant, but he has no role in making replacement of same. Therefore, complaint against OP-1 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 25.09.2019             

 

 (Param Pal Kaur)                       (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                              Member                             President