Muna Sahoo - Complainant(s)


Prop. M/S. Star Battery & Auto Electrical - Opp.Party(s)

Md. Azad

28 Jun 2023


Complaint Case No. CC/16/2021
( Date of Filing : 19 Feb 2021 )
1. Muna Sahoo
vill-Deranga(Part), P.O/P.S-Kaniha, Dist.-Angul
1. Prop. M/S. Star Battery & Auto Electrical
Authorized dealer-Exide Industries & Microtek, At-NTPC Bypass Road,P.O-Bijigol,Dist.-Angul, Pin-759117,Odisha
2. Exide Battery Manufacturer
At-Durga Chhak,Haldia,Dist.-Midnapore(E ), West Bengal-721602
 HON'BLE MR. Saroj Kumar Sahoo PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MS. Sasmita Kumari Rath MEMBER
Dated : 28 Jun 2023
Final Order / Judgement

Sri S.K.Sahoo,President.

           This is  a complaint U/s.35 of C.P.Act,2019 filed by the  complainant .

2.       Briefly stated  the case of the  complainant is that  he has purchased two numbers  of Exide Battery  from opp.party No.1  on payment of  Rs.22,500.00  on 22.10.2019  vide Tax Invoice Sl. No. 1995. After  some  days  the battery  bearing  the mark XP 1300 A 119C 300837 was  found defective  in backup  not  receiving the charge. The defect was  within the  warranty and  guaranty period, for which the  complainant immediately  informed  opp.party No.1 over Cell No. 9437122232 and lodge a complaint in the  month of 10.03.2020. The opp.party No.1 after receiving the  complaint  refused to give  any service due to Covid-19 and  advised  him to wait till the  spot  verification by the  company. On 23.11.2020 the service  engineer of the opp.parties reached at the  spot and  after proper verification found  the  battery defective and advised  the  complainant  to remove the battery  from the  vehicle and produce the  same  before the opp.party No.1 . On the  same  day  as per the advise of the engineer the  complainant produced the battery before opp.party No.1, who registered a claim bearing No. TR/EX/SAM/01557646 dtd.23.11.2020. On the  same  day the  opp.parties  issued  a letter  to the  complainant mentioning some false and fabricated reasons relating  to the defect in the battery and refused  to comply the  claim of the complainant. The opp.parties adopted unfair  trade practice and  there is  deficiency in service. Hence  this case.

3.       Notice  was  issued  to  all the  opp.parties through Regd. post with A.D on 02.03.2021.  The A.D in respect of opp.party No.2 is  available in the  case  record, but he  did not appear to  contest the  case. Opp.party No.1 submitted his  show cause  in  pursuance of  notice  issued to him. The case opp.party No.1 is  that the complaint  filed by the  complainant  against  him is not maintainable  in the eyes of law. There is no cause  of action to file this  case against him. The  complainant  has  purchased  the  batter from opp.party No.1 for Rs.10,000.00. On 12.11.2020 the  complainant  submitted his  battery before him  without  warranty card , bill or Invoice. The opp.party No.1  supplied s  service  battery to the  complainant  and  advised  him to submit the bill and warranty card. On 19.11.2020  the  complainant  produced  the warranty card and bill  before him. The opp.party No.1  requested  opp.party No.2  for replacement of the battery . On 23.11.2020 the opp.party No.2 rejected the  complaint  of the  complainant. Opp.party No.2  issued  a  letter to the  complainant, in which he has mentioned  that the battery is damaged  by external force and  by  melting . The opp.party No.1 is only  authorised dealer  for sale and service. He  is  not  responsible  for  replacement of  the battery . The opp.party No.2  is  liable  for  warranty and  guaranty . The advocate of the  complainant  has  sent  a legal notice  to opp.party No.1 & 2 and  soon after receipt of the  said  notice  the opp.party No.2  provided a new battery  XP-1300 to  opp.party No.2  which  was received  by him . Thereafter the opp.party No.1  informed  the  complainant  regarding  the  receipt  of the new battery  from opp.party No. 2. The complainant reached  the  shop of  opp.party No.1  but refused to receive the battery and  filed Consumer case. The opp.party No.1 is not liable to pay any amount to the  complainant. The be dismissed  with cost to opp.party No.1.

4.       Admittedly  the  complainant has purchased  a battery  bearing  No.XP1300 A119C300837 on payment of Rs.10,000.00 to opp.party No.1. The  photo copy of the tax Invoice issued by  the opp.party No.1  is filed by the complainant which  shows that the complainant has purchased the battery on 22.10.2019  from opp.party No.1 on payment of  Rs.10,000.00. The complainant  also filed  the photo copy of the  warranty card issued in his  favour issued by opp.party No.1. The  opp.party No.1 in his  show  cause  admitted  about  the  purchase  of  the  battery  by the  complainant  from him on payment of Rs.10,000.00. It is  also admitted by him that  on 12.11.2020 the  complainant  produced  the   battery before  him without  warranty card and  the Invoice  and  advised him to produce the  bill and warranty card and accordingly the  complainant  produced those  documents  before him on 19.11.2020. It is also  admitted  by opp.party No.1 in his  written statement  that  he had  requested  the opp.party No.2  for  replacement of  the battery which was rejected  by opp.party No.2  on 23.11.2020. At paragraph- 6 of  his   show  cause  the opp.party No.1  admitted that  he  received  a legal notice  from  the  Learned Counsel for the  complainant . At paragraph-7  it  is  admitted by the  opp.party No.1  that  opp.party No.2  provided  a new battery to opp.party No.1  and thereafter opp.party No.1  informed  about the  same  to the complainant  but complainant  refused to receive  and  threatened  to  file  Consumer Case. The  complainant has filed the photo copy of a letter dtd.23.11.2020  received from opp.party No.2. On perusal  of the  said  letter  it  appears that the  said letter was issued to the  complainant  with reference  to his warranty claim  dtd.23.11.2020. The  company engineer has mentioned  that the  battery  has been damaged  due  to  external force and melting  which may  occurred due  to  short circuit . He opined that the battery is  not  damaged  due to any defect in making the same but  it is due  to  the reasons stated above. It  appears from the   said letter that the  complainant  has produced and  identified  the  battery to the  engineer of the opp.party No.2 and  he  examined the same and  opined as above. From the  complaint petition and from the  show cause filed by the opp.party No.1  it is clear that the complainant  has  not  produced the  battery before the  engineer of opp.party No.2 and  although it was with opp.party No.1. The reasoning shown  in the report / letter dtd.23.11.2020 by the service engineer is not  supported by any reliable evidence. However, when   from the material on record it is clear that the damaged battery  is with the opp.party No.1, the report of the engineer of opp.party No.2 that it is produced before him by the  complainant is not reliable and trust worthy at all. It further appears that the  engineer has prepared  the  said letter dtd.23.11.2020 without  examining the battery at all . So no reliance can be  placed on such opinion of  the engineer of opp.party No.2. On the  other hand  all the materials  available  on the case record it is clear that  the  battery sold to  the  complainant by  opp.party No.1  became defective within warranty period. Opp.party No.1  at paragraph- 7  of  his  show cause  admitted that he has  received a new  battery from opp.party No.1 and he informed and requested the  complainant   to receive the same but  complainant  refused to receive . The opp. Party No.1 has not  produced any evidence  that he has  requested the complainant  to receive the new battery from him, although  admittedly he has  received the  same  from opp.party No.2. So  from the materials on record it is clear  that  both the opp.parties  have not  served the  complainant as required  for  replacement of the  new battery in place of  defective one. There is  deficiency in service on the part of both the opp.parties. Due to such conduct the  complainant sustained mental agony and harassment. The opp.parties have also  adopted unfair trade practice.

5.       Hence order:-

: O R D E R:

          The case be  and  same is allowed on contest against opp.party No.1 and exparte against opp.party No.2. Both the opp.parties are directed to  replace a new battery in place the damaged one. They are also directed to pay an amount of  Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand) only as compensation towards mental agony, harassment and unfair trade practice. They are also further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand) only towards cost of litigation . The opp.parties are jointly and severally liable  and  directed to  comply the  aforesaid order  within one month of  receipt of  the same, failing which they are liable  to pay interest @ 12% p.a till the  amount is paid. 

[HON'BLE MR. Saroj Kumar Sahoo]
[HON'BLE MS. Sasmita Kumari Rath]

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.