DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C NO. 14 OF 2014
Present: Sri Rabindranath Mishra - President
Miss Sudhira Laxmi Pattanaik - Member.
Sri Chakadola Malick - Member.
K Sarat Kumar Subudhi aged about 50 years
S/O: K. Bhimsen Subudhi At: Main Road
PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal, Odisha. …………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
1. M/S Padmini Enterprisers - 2068
Basu Pradhan Road, Phulbani
PO/PS: Phulbani Dist: Kandhamal, Odisha
2. Head of the Exide Industries Limited
Exide Industries Limited
59 E, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700020. ………………… Opp. Parties
For the Complainant: Sri H.C. Maharana Advocate, Phulbani
For the Opp. Parties: Sri Jagajit Panda, advocate.
Date of Order: 28-02-2015
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant in short is that on 05-10-2010 he had purchased a MEGA 1500 Exide Battery vide Sl. No. 3H082132 Mfg.Code -3H0 for the purpose to connect the same with inverter . He had paid the cost of the battery in cash and got the invoice along with warranty booklet which was duly filled with seal and signature by the dealer. The battery was installed and connected with the inverter by the technician. But after few days the battery showed bad result and was not functioning properly. Hence, he reported the dealer, O.P No.1 to exchange the battery and got another MEGA Exide Battery vide Sr. No. 3A2 309839 on 29-01-2012. During time of exchange the dealer took the invoice and warranty booklet issued against the Battery and issued a new invoice and warranty card .The same was again connected with the inverter by the Complainant through the technician but that showed same problem by not taking any back- up . So, the Complainant again reported the matter to the Opposite Parties but no action was taken by them. Hence, he has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties for a direction to replace the battery or to return back the sale price of the battery with interest and to grant compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards the harassment and mental agony along with Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of litigation .
-2-
In this case the Opposite Party No. 2 though appeared, failed to file his version for which he was set exparte. As per version of the O.P No.1 he is the authorized dealer of Exide Battery under O.P No.2 and he was no way related to the warranty of the Battery given by the Complainant.
We have gone through the Complaint petition and the version filed by O.P No.1. We have verified the copy of documents filed by the Complainant in support of his case. It is seen from the warranty card that the period of warranty of the said battery was 36 months. As the battery supplied by the O.Ps shows problem and was not functioning properly within the warranty period, the Opposite Parties are responsible to repair or replace the battery but in this case the Opposite parties neither repaired the battery nor replaced the same. Hence, they have committed deficiency in service in their part.
The O.P No.1 humbly stated that the company is responsible regarding the warranty of the battery. The O.P No.2 was not interested to file any version to counter the complaint given by the Complainant, in spite of repeated dates. Hence, we allow the complaint petition filed by the Complainant. The Opposite Parties No.2 is directed to supply a new Excide Battery by replacing the old battery given to the Complainant on 29-01-2012 through O.P No.1. The O.P No.2 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 1000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. In case of failure to pay the above amount the Complainant will be entitled to get the above amount with 9 % annum interest from O.P No.2 from the date of this order till the date payment.
Accordingly the complaint petition is allowed axparte against O.P No.2 and on contest against O.P No.1. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
