Date of filing : 24-05-2012
Date of Disposal : 31-01-2013
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).
Smt. M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday, the 31st day of January, 2013
C.C.NO.24/2012
Between:
B.Srinivasa Reddy
S/o B.Narayana Reddy
r/o Kothapalli Village
Vankaraju Kalva Post
Pamidi Mandal
Anantapur District. … Complainant.
Vs.
1. Apex Services & Trading Company
Rep. by Proprietor, Franchises of
Amaron Hi-Life Batteries,
14/433, SLV Towers, R.F. Road,
Anantapur.
2. M/s Amara Raja Batteries Limited,
Rep. by Managing Director,
Manufacturer of Amaron Hi-Life
Batteries, V Floor, Astra Towers,
12P, Hi-Tech City, Kondapur,
Hyderabad. …. Opposite parties
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Srinivasa Reddy party in person and Sri M.Manohar Naidu, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 is called absent and set-exparte and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on the complainant’s side, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, Preisdent (FAC): - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties claiming a sum of Rs.4,700/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase of Battery and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - the complainant is a permanent resident of Kothapalli Village of Pamidi Mandal. The complainant purchased “ Amaron Hi-Life Battery “ bearing No.AAF-0933-L-233857 for his Sumo vehicle on 02-11-2011 from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.4,700/- under Invoice No.3976 dt.02-11-2011. The warranty period for the said battery is 18 months from the date of purchase. The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the said Battery. From the date of purchase, the said battery did not work properly. Then the complainant brought the same to the notice of the opposite party No.1. But the opposite party No.1 did not rectify the defects. On 22-04-2012 the complainant brought the same to the notice of the Manager of the opposite party No.1, but the defect was not rectified and there was no proper response from the opposite party No.1. As the defects were not rectified by the opposite party No.1, the complainant insisted for refund of the price of the battery. Subsequently, the complainant issued a legal notice on 28-04-2012 to the opposite parties, the same were served and a reply notice was issued by the opposite party No.1. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint for refund of cost of the battery alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of purchase and also to compensate Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony.
3. The opposite party No.1 filed counter stating that all the allegations made in the complaint are not true and created for the purpose of filing this case. The opposite party No.1 submits that it is true that a battery was purchased by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 on 02-11-2011. The opposite party states that it is not correct that the opposite party No.1 has given warranty and promised to rectify any defect within warranty period and the article will be replaced with a new one. Further it is not true that the battery did not work properly from the date of purchase by the complainant. The opposite party No.1 submits that it is false that on 22-04-2012 the complainant brought to the notice of the Manager of this opposite party to rectify the defect, but the opposite party No.1 wantonly neglected to rectify the defect and gave irresponsible answer. The 1st opposite party submits that in fact the complainant brought battery which was in a broken condition on 22-04-2012 and opposite party No.1 saw the battery condition and informed the complainant that the breakage will not be covered under warranty; hence it can not be replaced or refunded. Subsequently, a notice was issued by the complainant, which was received and a suitable reply was given. In the above circumstances, the complainant’s battery can not be replaced or the cost of battery refunded as the terms & condition No.9 clearly reveals that the warranty does not cover any damage caused to the containers will not come under warranty. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The opposite party No.2 is called absent and set-exparte.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1?
2. To what relief?
6. The complainant has not filed any evidence on affidavit on his behalf and no documents are marked on his behalf. The opposite party No.1 filed evidence on affidavit on behalf of the opposite party No.1 and marked Ex.B1 document.
7. Heard on behalf of the opposite party No.1
8. POINT NO.1: - There is no dispute with regard to the purchase of the Battery by the complainant from the opposite party No.1 on 02-11-2011 for a sum of Rs.4,700/- under invoice No.3976 dt.02-11-2011 and the warranty period for the said battery is 18 months from the date of purchase. The version of the complainant is that the battery did not work properly from the date of purchase and the same was brought to the notice of the opposite party No.1, but the opposite party No.1 did not rectify the defects. Then the complainant got issued a legal notice on 28-04-2012 for replacement of the battery or for refund of the cost of the battery for which the opposite party No.1 issued a reply notice dt.04-05-2012. The opposite party No.1 filed terms and conditions of the warranty and in condition No.9 it is clearly mentioned that the warranty does not cover:
a. Damage to the battery caused by faulty electrical systems, improper handling service by
unauthorized dealers/technicians, willful abuse, destruction by fire, collision, theft or
recharging.
- Recharging, which would be billed extra.
- Breakage of container and cover
It clearly shows that the warranty does not cover any breakage of the container and cover.
9. The complainant brought the battery and after physical verification, we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the battery brought by the complainant had cracks on the container of the battery, which is not covered under warranty. As per Ex.B1 terms and conditions No.9© the warranty does not cover any breakage of container. Hence warranty does not cover as per terms and conditions of the warranty. In view of the above observation, the opposite party No.1 is not liable for replacement of battery or refund of the amount paid by the complainant for the battery.
10. POINT NO.2 – In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, this the 31st day of January, 2013.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT (FAC)
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTY
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
- NIL -
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1
Ex.B1 - Photo copy of Amaron Battery Warrant Card with terms & conditions.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER, PRESIDENT (FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
Typed by JPNN
