First Appeal No. 557 of 2014. Case: Arun Kumar Bhuyan Vs Suvendu Mohanta. Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberFirst Appeal No. 557 of 2014
CounselFor Appellant: A.K. Biswal & Associates
JudgesR.N. Biswal, J. (President), G.P. Sahoo and Smarita Mohanty, Members
IssueConsumer Law
Judgement DateAugust 31, 2015
CourtOrissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


R.N. Biswal, J. (President)

  1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 26.8.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Mayubhanj at Baripada (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in CC no. 27 of 2013 directing the appellant to receive back the defective battery arid refund Rs. 1,050/- towards its cost to the respondent besides paying compensation and litigation litigation cost of Rs. 1,000/-.

  2. The case of the respondent who was complainant before the District Forum stated in brief is that he purchased one MARON Battery on 17.6.2011 for Rs. 1,050/- from the appellant. It did not function within the period of warranty and as such the respondent went to the Appellant several occasions requesting him to replace the same by a new one but to no effect So he filed the aforesaid case before the District Forum.

  3. The appellant on being noticed entered appearance through his counsel before the District Forum and filed written version admitting the Respondent to have purchased the subject battery from him but according to him respondent damaged the battery as such he was not entitled to get a new battery in exchange.

  4. The District Forum after going through the pleading of the parties hearing their respective counsel held that the respondent filed evidence on affidavit and the appellant did not file any objection to it. So is presumed that he admitted the case as set up by the respondent Moreover during hearing of the case respondent produced the defective battery on 18.6.2014 before the District Forum and on verification it was found that the battery was not damaged by the respondent As per the warranty card granted to the respondent the defective battery would be replaced with a new one and accordingly passed the impugned order.

  5. Being aggrieved with the said order appellant who was opposite party before the District Forum has preferred the present appeal as stated earlier.

  6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent did not array the manufacturer of the battery as a party So the District "Forum ought to have dismissed the Consumer Complaint for non joinder of necessary party He further submits that the battery was not sent to any expert...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT