DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.125 of 2018

Date of Instt. 26.03.2018

Date of Decision: 26.10.2021

Umesh Jain S/o Late Sh. Tansukh Rai Jain aged about 33 years R/o House No.18-B, Brij Nagar, Jalandhar.

….. Complainant

Versus

1. Amco Batteries Limited, SCO No.30, Partap Bagh, Jalandhar City – 144001, through its office Head.

2. Amco Batteries Limited, Addison Building, 1^st Floor, 803, ANNA SALAI, Chennai–600002, through its Managing Director.

3. Tractor & Farm Equipment Limited, Power Source Division, 35 Nungambakkam High Road, 2^nd Floor, Potti Patti Plaza, Chennai – 600034, Tamil Nadu, through its Managing Director.

4. J.N. Infotech, 1 – Vijay Nagar, Near Football Chownk, Jalandhar City, through its office Head.

..…Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Kuljit Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. Manuj Aggarwal, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Vikas Sharma, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3.

Sh. Rajesh Sharma, Adv. Counsel for OP No.4.

ORDER:-

KULJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by complainant against the OPs on the averments that OP No.1 is the branch office of OP-2 engaged in sales and service of products manufactured and marketed by OP-2 & OP-3. OP-2 and OP-3 are sister concerns of the same Amalgamation group and OP-2 is also selling the batteries being manufactured by OP-3. OP-4 is the dealer from whom the battery was purchased by complainant of Type Tubular battery of model No.AIP-180 T of Make Amco Insta Power AIP series, vide their cash memo/bill No.1414 dated 22.06.2015 by duly paid amount of Rs.11900/-. At the time of purchase of said produce, the OPs fully assured to complainant that the product is of utmost good quality and it’s manufactured by OP-3 and serviced by OP-2 having their local branch OP-1 at Jalandhar. Complainant was told that batteries carries a 30 months “Free replacement warranty” and the warranty card also bears a seal to this effect by the company. A certificate of company duly confirming the warranty period of product. Moreover, complainant was assured that the Jalandhar Branch office – OP-1 will duly provide free replacement warranty and service of the product in case of failure which was duly confirmed by OP-1. The product failed in month of October 2017 and then complainant approached OP-4 again who checked, verified and confirmed that the product is faulty/defective and has failed within warranty period of 30 months and need to be replaced by company. On 16.11.2017, the defective battery was handed over to OP-4 to be again checked and reconfirmed for being faulty/defective. On 18.11.2017, complainant alongwith OP No.4 went to OP-1 for replacement of product and the company service officials duly confirmed after checking that the battery is faulty and needs to be replaced, due to non-availability of the stock they issued a receipt for the same and asked complainant wait for period of 7-8 days for the stock to reach the OP-1. Complainant duly handed over defective/faulty battery alongwith original cash memo/bill and original warranty card to Company’s service officials and they in turn issued a receipt for the same with the request to wait for a period of 7-8 days for the arrival of stock. Thereafter, complainant after regular intervals contact the branch officials of OP-1. Finally in the second week of December, when complainant got fed up with the false promises/assurances of OP-1 then he again contacted OP-1 for replacement of his battery and OP-1 demanded an illegal amount of Rs.2500/- to be paid in cash to the OP-1 for replacement of defective battery of complainant. Complainant refused to pay any illegal amount to OP-1 and further OP-4 duly confirmed that the product carries a free replacement warranty of 30 months for which no amount is to be paid. Lastly, prayer has been made that the OPs be directed to replace the defective/faulty battery with new one of the same type and specification or to refund the current price of the battery alongwith 18% interest from the date of submission of faulty battery with OP-1 to the date of final payment and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and OPs No.1 to 3 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; complaint is a gross abuse of process of law; complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and same has not been properly drafted or clarify the facts; complainant is ex-facie misconceived, untenable and devoid of merit; complainant does not falls under definition of consumer; complainant had purchased battery from OP-4 on 22.06.2015 and OP-4 is dealer of OP-2. As per norms of OP No. 1 to 3 the warranty period is for 24 months, as is clear as mentioned in the warranty card. If any dealer give warranty over and above the period as mentioned by OP in warranty card, the same it at the sole risk and responsibility of that dealer. The warranty period in present case expires on 21.06.2017. The battery type, serial number and manufacturing code is different from the warranty claim report. The Op No.1&2 never put any round seal/stamp on the warranty card. The same has been forged and fabricated by the complainant or OP No.4 in connivance with each other just to come within the ambit of alleged warranty period of 30 months. On merits, on checking the record it was found that the warranty period of the battery was over. It is denied that official of answering OP ever demanded Rs.2500/- to be paid in cash to branch officials. There is no cause of action accrued on the part of complainant to file the present complaint as the complaint was properly attended to and the defective battery was duly repaired and is now in working condition. Other averments of complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

3. OP No.4 also appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that OP-4 had only sold the product on behalf of OP No.1 to 3 being their sale dealer and as per warranty terms and conditions set and communicated by Op No.1 to 3 to the Op No.4. Thus OP-4 cannot be held responsible for the mischiefs and lapses on the part of Op No. 1 to 3. Op No.4 is neither the manufacturer nor the marketer or the service provider of the product sold to the complainant. The product was sold to the consumer is as it is conditions and as per warranty terms set by Op No.1 to 3. Op-4 had always performed his due duties towards the consumer time to time and it is the OPs No. 1 to 3 who had defaulted with the consumer and had denied the consumer of rightful warranty of the product manufactured and marketed by Op No.1 to 3; at the time of sale of the product the OP-1 had specifically confirmed to the complainant about the warranty of product and also promised good warranty & service to the complainant. The Op No.1 to 3 having foul play with the complainant and denied him of adequate warranty and service of the product, manufactured, serviced and marketed by OP No. 1 to 3. As per clause 3 of the terms and conditions of sale of the product, printed on the sale bill of the OP-4 had specifically stated that the invoiced items carries manufacturer’s warranty only and we will only assist in getting the warranty and will not be liable for any lapses on the part of manufacturer; OP-4 had timely informed OP No.1 to3 through emails & manual submissions about the complete details of the product sold by him along with the date of sale, serial No. and warranty of the product for warranty validation and registration. On merits, sale of the product is admitted; it is also admitted that the product sold to complainant carries a 30 months “Free replacement warranty” and the warranty card of the company also bears a seal to this effect. OP-3 issued a certificate qua the warranty of the product to OP-4, which the OP-3 officials took it back as they extended the warranty of product from 30 months to 36 months which was got printed on the warranty cards. It is admitted that OP-1 duly confirmed the free replacement warranty period of the product and also assured the complainant of the best of the warranty service in case of any failure in the product. It is admitted that product failed in the month of October 2017 and OP-4 got the product checked and confirmed the failure of the product within the warranty period of 30 months. It is further admitted that on 16.11.2017, the defective battery was handed over to OP-4 and on 18.11.2017 the OP-4 went alongwith complainant to OP-1 office for replacement of the product, where the officials of the OP-1 duly checked the invoice, warranty card and the faulty battery and confirmed that the battery failed within the warranty period and needs to replaced and they also prepared a warranty claim report duly stating the warranty of 30 months of the product and further promised the complainant to wait for few days for the arrival of the stock for replacement. The complainant told to OP-4 that the OP-1 officials are illegally demanding Rs.2500/- for the replacement of the product. Other averments of the complaint are admitted as correct.

4. In order to prove their respective versions, complainant and OP-4 produced on the file their respective documents.

5. On the other hand, OP No.1 to 3 has failed to produce evidence and ultimately was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 10.04.2019. Thereafter, OP No.1&3 are allowed to join the proceeding, only for having right to put arguments, vide order dated 26.02.2020.

6. Rejoinder to the written statements filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied those of the written statement.

7. We have heard the argument from learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

8. From the above averments these points were taken for consideration. Point No. 1, whether complainant is eligible for compensation as prayed for by him not? Point No.2: Whether deficiency of service and negligence on the part of OPs 1 to 3 or not? Point No.3 relief?

9. It is clear that the complainant had purchased battery in dispute from OP-4. As per Ex.C-3, the battery was given Ops on 18.11.2017. There is warranty of 30 months as revealed from stamped affixed on copy of warranty card Ex.C-5. Moreover, it is also admitted by the OP-4 that the warranty is for the period of 30 months, from the complainant has purchased the product in disputes. Moreover, on warranty claim report Ex.C-3 = Ex.OP4/1, it is clearly mentioned that warranty = 30 months.

10. The OP No.1 to 3 have failed produced any cogent evidence and to rebut the version of the complainant. Moreover, till date, the OPs have failed to replace the battery in disputes. Thus, virtually statement of complainant suffered through affidavit through Ex.CA and affidavit on behalf of OP-4 are fully believable that he due to defect in battery in disputes. Despite that the trouble in the battery is persisting and not replaced. In view of this, it is obvious that battery become defective under warranty period and was non-operational. Therefore, statement of complainant through affidavit and OP-4 fully believable that due to inherent defect in the battery, the same is become defective/faulty. This complaint has been filed for refund of battery within warranty period. No one from external appearance will be able to detect the inherent manufacturing defects warranting replacement of battery. However, refund of price of battery place in this case within span of warranty from purchase of the battery by complainant.

11. In case titled as Hind Motor (I) Ltd & Anr. Tata Motors Vs Lakhbir Singh & another 1(2014) CPJ 120 (NC), it has been laid that in case inherent defect in vehicle requiring major repairs after short span of eight months, found, then the vehicle should to be replaced, due to deficiency in services. Same is the position in this case. So by applying the analogy of law laid down in the above said case, this complaint deserves to be allowed.

12. Consequently, this complaint is partly allowed with directions to OPs No.1 to 3 to deliver a new defect free battery to complainant without charging any cost from him with fresh warranty. In the alternative OPs No.1 to 3 directed to return amount of Rs.11,900/- to complainant with interest @ 6% per annum from date of filing of this complaint. Amount of Rs.1,000/- allowed on account of mental harassment and Rs.1,000/- allowed as litigation expenses in favour of complainant and against OP No.1 to 3. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order.

13. Copies of the order be sent to the parties, as permissible, under the rules. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

14. File be indexed and consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission

26^thof October 2021

Kuljit Singh

(President)

Jyotsna

(Member)