DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;BHADRAK

………………..

C.D.Case No.103 of 2015

Sri Pradipta Kumar Nayak, aged about 47 years,

S/o: P.C.Nayak, Vill:Kantapal,

PO: Charampa, PS/Dist:Bhadrak

                                      …………………..Complainant

             (Vrs.)

M/s.Mahabir Yamaha,

Authorised Sub-Dealer India Yamaha Motor(P) Ltd.,

N.H.-5, Dahani Gadia,

Bhadrak-756101

                                      ………………………Opp.Party

Order No.12 dt.18.05.2016:

            The case of the Complainant is that he had purchased Yamaha Ray-I Scooty from O.P. on 09.09.2014. During warranty period, the Excide Battery fitted in the vehicle did not function as a result of which the Complainant handed over the same to O.P. The O.P received Rs.1200/- from the Complainant and granted receipt bearing No.188 dt.26.05.2015 for Rs.242/-. The O.P. also mentioned receipt of Rs.1200/- from Complainant on the back side of the aforesaid receipt. O.P. assured the Complainant to refund Rs.1000/- at the time of delivery of old battery handed over to Complainant on 26.05.2015 for temporary arrangement of the vehicle. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the O.P. several times to take back the old battery and to provide the original battery besides refund Rs.1200/- to him. The O.P. remained silent over the matter. So finding no other alternative the Complainant filed this case on 15.09.2015 praying for a direction to O.P. for payment of compensation of rs.20,000/- besides refund of Rs.1200/- illegally received from Complainant on 26.05.2015.

            O.P. after receipt of notice did not prefer to appear in this case and finally the O.P. has been set exparte vide order dt.31.10.2015.

            We heard the Ld.Counsel for Complainant and perused the documents filed by the Complainant. In support of his case the Complainant has filed Xerox copy of warranty card along with service record. The Complainant has filed the Xerox copy of Retail Invoice No.188 dt.26.05.2015 granted by O.P. showing receipt of Rs.242/-. On the back side of the said receipt it has been mentioned “both amount Rs.1200/-. Excess amount to be refunded……..”. The Complainant has also filed Xerox copy of Advocate’s Notice sent to O.P. as well as to Area Manager, Yamaha , Area Office, Kolkata by Regd. Post on 02.06.2015  narrating the entire episode. Sale of vehicle to Complainant on 09.09.2014 along with Excide battery is established from the warranty card filed by the Complainant. It is also revealed from the service record of the warranty card that on 08.05.2015 the battery was defunct and not keeping charge. So it is clear that within warranty period of 12 months the battery fitted in the vehicle was found defective and the O.P. without repairing the same free of cost or providing a new battery charged Rs.1200/- from the Complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. As the O.P. has nothing to say, he did not prefer to contest the case. Under the above circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the O.P. is deficient in rendering proper service to Complainant. Accordingly, it is ordered:

                                                 O R D E R

            In the result, the complaint is allowed exparte against the O.P.. The O.P. is directed to take back the old battery supplied to Complainant for temporary use and to  provide a new Excide battery to the Complainant in exchange of defective battery handed over on 26.05.2015. The O.P. is further directed to refund Rs.1200/- to the Complainant and to pay litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the Complainant. The aforesaid directions be carried out by the O.P. within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order.