PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day June 2012
Filed on : 16-05-2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 250/2011
Between
Bijumon, S/o Gopalan, : Complainant
Chethana House, (By Adv. Tom Joseph,
Karimugal P.O., Court road, Muvattupuzha)
Ernakulam.
And
1. Amara Raja Batteries Ltd., : Opposite parties
Regd. Office, Karakambadi, (1st Op by Adv Ashik K.Mohamed
Tirupati, 517 520, Ali, CC 12/838B, Moulana Azad
Andhra Pradesh, Road, Cochin-682 002)
2. M/s. Power Grid, (2nd O.P. deleted as per order in
31/130, A2, Lal Vihar, I.A. 535/2011 dt. 16/09/2011)
Ambelipadam road,
Janatha Jn., Vyttila,
Kochi-682 019.
3. M/s. State Radiator Agencies, (O.P. 3 impleaded as per order in
Surabhi Towers, I.A. 539/2011 dt. 16/09/2011)
Opp. SBT, M.C. Road,
Perumbavoor-683 542.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is operating a bus service for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. On 01-03-2010 the complainant purchased two batteries from the additional 3rd opposite party at a price of Rs. 28,000/- for using them in his bus. The batteries started showing complaints from November 2010 onwards. The matter was brought to the notice of the 3rd additional opposite party. The technician deputed by the 3rd opposite party could not rectify the defects. Another technician came and he tried to stop the leakage by applying M Seal. On 04-03-2010 one of the battery exploded during a trip. Though the matter was brought to the notice of the 1st opposite party, no action was taken by them. The defects of the battery is due to the inherent manufacturing defect of the same. After the explosion of a battery he had to purchase another battery on 12-04-2011. The complainant is entitled to get refund of the price of the batteries together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. The version of the of the first opposite party.
The complainant has suppressed the bill of the batteries which would have revealed the actual price of the batteries. On 21-01-2011 the complainant sent an E-mail to the first opposite party and on the basis of that the 1st opposite party sent their representative to attend to the complaint. The batteries were checked at the convenience of the complainant on 03-02-2011. On inspection it was found that there was a leaking through its terminal post. Both the batteries were found to be having terminal post damage due to the improper terminal clamp. It appeared that they were hit with some heavy object. The batteries were repaired by several persons not authorized by the first opposite party prior to 03-02-2011. There was no manufacturing defect in the batteries. The complaint is not maintainable since the complainant is not a consumer as per the provisions of section 2 (1) (d) of the CP Act. The complainant has no cause of action against the 1st opposite party to file the complaint.
3. Despite service of notice from this Forum the 3rd opposite party did not respond to for their own reasons. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The witness for the first opposite party was examined as DW1. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the first opposite party.
4. The points that came up for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the price
of the batteries under dispute?
iii. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation
and costs of the proceedings?
5. Point Nos. i. According to the complainant he has been operating a bus service for earning his livelihood by means of self employment and he purchased two batteries for using them in the bus. Nothing is on record to controvert the averments of the complainant. Therefore we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is a consumer as per the provisions of Section 2 (1) (d) of the CP Act.
6. Point No. ii&iii. According to the complainant he purchased two batteries from the 3rd additional opposite party on 01-03-2010 at a price of Rs. 14,000/- each which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. He has not produced the purchase bill in this Forum for his own reasons which goes to show that the claim has not been proved squarely except for an assumption which does not call for sustainable grounds in law. However Ext. A1 warranty goes to show that he purchased the same from the additional 3rd opposite party on 01-03-2010. Ext. A2 series would be show that on two occasions the service personnel of the 1st opposite party attended to the batteries i.e. on 03-02-2011 in furtherance of Ext. A3 complaint lodged by the complainant. The complainant has not taken any steps to produce the batteries in question before this Forum or substantiate the contention that they had prayed for repair of the same. Neither do they have a prayer for expert opinion to substantiate the same.
7.The 1st opposite party vehemently contended that the batteries in question sustained damages due to mishandling of the same by the complainant . However the same has not been proved in evidence. During the course of the proceedings the 1st opposite party did not exhibit anything against their willingness to replace one of the batteries which was an earnest prayer of the complainant at least one of the batteries as a last stow. Matters being set right primarily and without difference of consensus we partly allow the complainant provided that the 1st opposite party take steps to replace at least one of the batteries with a new one of the same price with prorata warranty. Since the primary grievance of the complainant having been met squarely no further reliefs are called for in this case necessarily.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day June 2012.
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of brochure
A2series : Copy of service call form
A3 : Copy of letter dt. 20-01-2011
A4 : Copy of retail invoice
Opposite party’s Exhibits : : Nil
Depositions:
PW1 : Bijumon
DW1 : Sreejith Krishnan
