Rama Electronics vs J Govindarao S/O Late Satyanarayana

ORDER dated 15 -4 -2014 in CC 151/2013 passed by the District Forum, Srikakulam is under challenge in this appeal preferred by opposite party No.1 against the first respondent herein i.e. complainant. The District Forum allowed the complaint of the first respondent herein with a direction to the opposite parties 1 and 2 to supply him a new battery in the place of the defective battery, making them jointly and severally liable. Rs.2,000/ - was awarded as costs inclusive of Rs.1,000/ - towards the advocate fee.

THE complainant instituted the complaint alleging that the battery manufactured by the second opposite party, supplied by opposite party No.1 on 12 -9 -2011 for Rs.7,200/ -, failed to work since February, 2013 though the battery was covered by warranty for a period of two years from the date of purchase. The opposite parties did not replace the same inspite of demands made by the complainant. He, therefore, instituted the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to supply a new battery in the place of the defective battery. He also prayed for Rs.30,000/ - towards compensation and damages, Rs.2,000/ - towards advocate fee and interest @ 24% p.a.

THE opposite parties did not choose to contest the matter by filing their versions/counters. The District Forum, therefore, allowed the complaint. It may be noted that the order was passed against both the opposite parties making them jointly and severally liable. Opposite party No.2, who is the manufacturer, did not choose to question the order. In this appeal initially at the time of filing, opposite party No.2 was shown as respondent No.2 but was given up later. Therefore, the order passed against opposite party No.2 has become final.

THE question for consideration is whether the order passed by the District Forum warrants interference in appeal.

A perusal of the order shows that both the opposite parties though served with notices before the District Forum, did not choose to contest the matter. The record produced before this Commission discloses that ample opportunity was given to the opposite parties to file their counters. Neither of them filed counters/written versions denying the allegations of the complainant. Even in the present appeal, no material is filed in support of the grounds raised. Therefore, they are deemed to have accepted the claim. The evidence of the complainant shows that the battery was purchased by him for Rs.7,200/ - and that it failed to work within the warranty period. The said evidence stood unrebutted by both the opposite parties. In the circumstances, in the opinion of this Commission, the Forum is right in allowing the claim of the complainant. The order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference of this Commission.

THE appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.