Haryana

Ambala

CC/133/2018

Virender Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ajanta Battery Service - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint Case No.: 133 of 2018.

                                                          Date of Institution         :  25.04.2018.

                                                          Date of decision   :  22.08.2019.

 

Virender Kumar s/o Shri S.S. Verma, aged 64 years, r/o H.No.41, Ashok Nagar, Ambala Cantt (UID No.3660-9061-0007).

                                                                                       …. Complainant.                                                 Versus

1. Ajanta Battery Service through its Proprietor, Shop No.121, Rai Market, Ambala Cantt-133001.
2. Exide Industries Ltd. through its Managing Director, C&F Agent for: Exide Industries Ltd., Plot No.316, Sector-3, HSIDC Industrial Area, Near Namaste Chowk, Karnal-132001.
3. Exide Industries Ltd., through its Managing Director, Head Office: Exide House, 59E, Chowringhee, Kolkatta-700020.

               ..…. Opposite Parties.

         

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.                 

                            

Present:       Shri Virendra Verma, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

None for the OP No.1.

Shri L.R. Saini, Advocate, counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3.

 

ORDER:     SH. VINOD KUMAR SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’), praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To replace battery with the new one or to refund the amount of Rs.13,200/-.
2. To pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by him.
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
   382.  

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit.

 

Brief facts of the case are that on 10.07.2015, the complainant purchased battery Model No.Exide CT500 Ceil Tubular 150AH, Serial No.FL00-CT500-1OG0401610087859 BWRG from the OP No.1 vide bill No.11462 dated 10.07.2015 for a sum of Rs.13,200/- with 36 months warranty. In the month of December, 2017, he reported the problem in the battery for low backup/early discharge to the OP No.1 telephonically and requested to check the problem as his old aged mother was facing problem in the night due to said problem, because inverter was failed to work. The OP No.1 sent his servant to check the battery, who told him that the battery is having problem. On the asking of OP No.1, he sent the battery in question for replacement through Exide Distributor for Ambala i.e. M/s Powerpoint, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt, but on 01.03.2018, the OP No.2 returned back the same defected battery without replacement. The complainant contacted the OP No.1 in this regard, who requested him to give a week time more to get replacement of the battery, but on 13.03.2018, it flatly refused to get it replaced from the main supplier i.e. OPs No.2 & 3. As per terms & conditions of warranty available on website of the OP No.3, it is very clear that “The Battery warranty commences from the date of delivery to the original purchaser”. The complainant had sent legal notice though registered post, which was received by the OPs on 15.03.2018 & 17.03.2018 respectively. The battery in question is within warranty from the date of delivery/purchase i.e. 10.07.2015 and the OPs are bound to replace the same, but they did not do so, therefore, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice, the OP No.1 appeared through counsel. However, on 01.10.2018, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has made a statement that written statement filed on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3, be read as it is, on behalf of OP No.1.

                   The OPs No.2 & 3 appeared through counsel and have filed written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus-standi and cause of action. On merits, it is stated that there is toll free number of the company on the warranty card, as well as on the battery and there is also website of the company. The complainant has never given any call or complaint to the OPs No.2 & 3 regarding any problem in the battery within warranty period. As per warranty clause, there is replacement of battery in case of any defect in the battery within 30 months and after 30 months, there is a concession of 20% on MRP of current date if the customer purchase new battery of same type within six months i.e. after 31 months to 36 months. M/s Power Point received the battery in question in the month of March 2018 and the same was sent to the OP No.2 at Karnal after 32 months of its purchase. As per the slab of the company, the complainant was offered concession of 20% on MRP, if he purchase new battery of same type, but he himself refused to accept the offer of OPs No.2 & 3. There is no manufacturing defect in the battery. The OPs have not committed any deficiency in service, thus the complaint filed against them may be dismissed with heavy cost.

3.                The ld. counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit of Shri Gurjit Singh, Senior Engineer (Service), Exide Batteries Ltd., Karnal as Annexure OP2/A alongwith document as Annexure OP2/1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs No.2 & 3. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.1 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OP No.1 has been closed by the order of this Forum on 11.07.2019.

4.                We have heard the learned counsel for complainant and carefully gone through the case file.

5.                 The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant purchased a battery from the OP No.1 with 36 years warranty vide bill No.11462 dated 10.07.2015 (Annexure C-2). In the month of December, 2017, the said battery started giving low backup/early discharge. On the asking of OP No.1, the complainant sent the battery for replacement through Exide Distributor for Ambala i.e. M/s Powerpoint, Gandhi Market, Ambala Cantt, but on 01.03.2018, the OP No.2 returned back the same defected battery without replacement vide document Annexure C-3. Hence, the OPs are deficient. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 has argued that M/s Power Point received the battery in question in the month of March 2018 i.e. after 32 months of its purchase. As per the slab of the company, the complainant was offered concession of 20% on MRP, if he purchase new battery of same type, but he himself refused to accept the offer of OPs No.2 & 3. Admittedly, the complainant purchased the battery in question from the OP No.1 on 10.07.2015 with 36 years warranty vide bill Annexure C-2. The plea of the complainant is that the battery in question became defective in the month of December, 2017 and in this regard, he contacted the OP No.1. On the other hand, the OPs No.2 & 3 has taken the plea that they received the battery in question in the month of March 2018 i.e. after 32 months from its purchase. The moot question for consideration before this Forum is that after how many months from the purchase of battery in question, it became defective. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.1 has neither filed separate written version specifically denying the contentions of the complainant as mentioned in the complaint nor lead the evidence. In these circumstances, the version of the complainant with regard to defect of the battery occurred in December 2017 i.e. after about 29 months, remained unrebutted. As per the Terms of Warranty (Annexure OP2/1), if the battery in question became defective within 0-30 months, then the same will be replaced. From the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, it is established that the battery in question became defective within warranty period and the OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the complainant, as such, they are deficient in providing the services to the complainant. 

6.                 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint against the OPs. They are directed to comply with the following directions jointly and severally:-

1. To replace the defective battery in question with the new one of the same model, as purchased by the complainant. If they are not in position to replace the battery of the same model, then refund the amount of Rs.13,200/-.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

                   The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum for the period of default. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on :22.08.2019.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)       (Ruby Sharma)                  (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                            Member                            President