Date of Filing:14.01.2008<br /> Date of Order:30.05.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF MAY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 157 OF 2008<br /> <br /> Mahesh Kumar.M.S,<br /> 103-26528, Technology Div.,<br /> R & D Complex, BEML Nagar,<br /> K.G.F. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Country Service Manager,<br /> APC India Head Office,<br /> No.27, Lavelle Road, <br /> Bangalore-560 001. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant purchased APC UPS ES500 on August-2005 with a warranty of two years. Within two years battery got some problem and company replaced UPS on 1/5/2007. Within five months the replaced battery started giving problems. APC service Customer Care avoided to discuss the matter since from original purchase date warranty period was over. After replacement also complainant gave two years warranty. There was lot of voltage fluctuations it could cause lot of problems. Hence, complainant claims Rs.50,000/- as compensation since UPS supplied APC is faulty. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party appeared and filed defence version stating that complaint is baseless and frivolous. Opposite party is a multinational company having customers across the world. After enjoying the service of UPS for nearly two years complainant gave complaint stating there was some problem. Warranty will not be extended for fresh period of two years from date of replacement of original unit. Opposite party has not supplied defective unit. The admission made by the complainant stating that there is a heavy fluctuation itself reveals that UPS of the complainant could have been destroyed and it was not because of defective unit. Therefore, opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Arguments heard. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:- <br /> 1. Whether there was any deficiency in service <br /> on the part of the opposite party? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for <br /> compensation? <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. I have gone through the complaint and the defence version. Admittedly, the complainant had purchased UPS in the year 2005 with two years warranty. Because of battery problem the opposite party company replaced UPS on 11/5/2007. Again the complainant states that after five months the replaced battery started giving trouble. He informed the matter to the service center and opposite party informed that warranty period was over. Therefore, the UPS cannot be replaced. The complainant itself stated in his complaint that there was lot of voltage fluctuations in his area. So, when this is the problem how can it be stated that UPS supplied by the opposite party was defective one. As per the admission of the complainant himself the UPS was once replaced within the warranty of two years. The complainant wants that warranty period shall be continued for another two years from the date of replacement of original UPS, this cannot be done. The opposite party has rightly replaced the UPS within the warranty period. Therefore, if there was any defect or problem with the UPS it is for the complainant to rectify it or repair it through service centers on payment of legal charges. When the complainant himself has stated in his complaint there was lot of voltage fluctuations in his area that itself goes to show that the UPS has no problem. If at all there was any problem it was because of heavy voltage fluctuations. So, under these circumstances, no negligence or deficiency in service could be attributed to the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The question of granting compensation does not arise at all. The complainant has purchased UPS of Rs. 2,900/- and he had made use of the same for more than two years and now he has come with a case that he shall be compensated to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-. This request of the complainant is nothing but a short of giving harassment or to tarnish the name of the opposite party company. There is absolutely no basis or reasons to claim compensation of Rs.50,000/- in this case. This shows how the consumers are misusing the benevolent provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. In this case there is absolutely no merit and therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF MAY 2008.<br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />