Delhi

East Delhi

CC/1112/2014

ABHISHEK MITTAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

ARCHIT TOWER - Opp.Party(s)

07 Aug 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO.1112/14

ABHISHEK MITTAL

PROPRIETOR OF M/S. MITTAL COMPUTER TYPING CENTRE

9 SHYAM ENCLAVE, NEAR KARKARDOOMA,

DELHI-110092                                                                                           ….Complainant

•  

1. M/S ARCHIT POWER SERVICES

THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR. ASHISH MADAN,

16, UDAY SINGH PALACE, HAHARPUR,

SECTOR -7, ROHINI, NEW DELHI-110085

 

2. GLOBAL POWER SOURCE (INDIA) PVT. LTD.

ROCKET BATTERIES

69-6a, MAIN RAMA ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA,

OPP. KIRTI NAGAR METRO STATION,

NEW DELHI-110015.

 

3. PRESIDENT & CEO

M/S APC

9.  

DLF CYBER CITY, PHASE-II, GURGAON,

HARYANA-122002, INDIA.                                                                      ….Opponents

Date of Institution: 03.12.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 21.08.2018

Judgment Passed on: 24.09.2018

 

 

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER)

Ms. HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

 

ORDER BY: HARPREET KAUR CHARYA (MEMBER)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The present complaint pertains to allegation of deficiency in services and unfair trade practice by the complainant Shri Abhishek Mittal, Proprietor of “M/S Mittal Computer Typing Centre” against M/S Archit Power Services (OP-1) authorized seller and service provider of APC Uninterruptable Power Supplies, Global Power Source (India) Pvt. Ltd., (OP-2) “Battery Supplier” and President and CEO of M/S APC manufacturer of Uninterrupted Power Supply (OP-3).
2. The case of the complainant is that in pursuance of quotation dated 11^th  December 2012 from OP-1, the complainant ordered UPS for Rs.72,000/- which carried two years warranty. On 24^th December 2012, a SRC series model SRC6000UXI bundled with ROCKET make batteries manufactured by OP-2 were supplied and bill of Rs.73,000/- was issued. The complainant has stated that the noise in UPS System was abnormally loud, for which the engineer of OP-1 was informed and thereafter within a period of six months there was a reduced backup time which escalated the electricity bill due to increased self discharged batteries. It has been stated that typically the battery life is about three or five years or 1200 Cycles,  but the battery supplied by OP-2 were faulty for which complaint was registered on 25.05.2013 vide complaint no. C1-4787849300. It has been further stated that instead of replacing faulty batteries another dealer of OP-3 namely M/S 21^st Century, 7255 Ajindra Market, 2^nd Floor, Shakti Nagar Chowk, New Delhi-110007, replaced the unit of complainant with a very old & dirty unit on 01.06.2013 and the problem of reduced backup time continued to exist. Vide complaint no. C1-4819139017, the complainant demanded his UPS and batteries back and reiterated the same in his E.mail dated 13.06.2013. On 14.06.2013 against complaint no. C1-4829054694 the capacity of the batteries was shown to be 38%, which clearly indicated the faulty and ageing batteries. The complainant has stated that the complainant was under constant and serious threat to his life due to bad stage of batteries which generates abnormal heat and could explode. On 18.06.2013, only the battery voltage was tested by OP-2. Despite repeated calls and e.mails dated 20.06.2013, OP-3 failed to replace the entire set of batteries as per warranty terms and conditions rather just three batteries were replaced instead of entire batteries pack. Again on 21.06.2013, spot replacement of batteries was carried out by OP-1. Another complaint bearing no. 4829054694 was registered with OP on 23.12.2013 for higher consumption of electricity and reduced backup which was within one year of purchase and it still remains pending. The complainant has stated that he had been cheated by OP-1 & OP-3, as the warranty of batteries in SURT Model was two years and SRC Model it was one year, and the batteries of the affiliated make “ROCKET” were sold by OP-1. It has been alleged that OP-3 in connivance with its dealers and in association with battery suppliers has created voluntary confusion for nationwide fraud and wrongful gain, for which legal notice was served, in reply to the said legal notice it was stated by OP-1 that they were not engaged in manufacturing of any kind of UPS or battery, being only the seller they could not replace the UPS System unless they  received the directions from customer care of manufacturer, however, the complainant has stated that OP-2 does not provide clear information to the customers and imparts differential treatment based on the source of the purchase by the customer.

The noise check on the UPS System SRC6000UXI was performed by the complainant and it was found that the system was emitting noise at 70 Decibels (dBA) in comparison of 55 dBA as mentioned in the specification which was brought to the notice of OP-3, who secretly changed the noise emission norms to 60 dBA which is the highest permissibility limit as per ISO 3746 standards required under CEMEP European Union Norms. Complainant has also stated that due to exposure to the high level noise for a considerable period of time i.e. from 25.12.2013 to 17.02.2014, he has got Tinnitus and was constrained to buy new UPS. The noise of the UPS manufactured by OP has also created imbalance between the left ear and the right ear of the complainant. On 26.02.2014, the complainant was offered replacement with another model SRC-6KUXI which according to the complainant is stated to be a procedure to announce a recall. Feeling aggrieved, hence, the present complaint with prayer for direction for full refund of the amount of Rs.73,000/- paid to the respondent, an interest @ 24% per annum from initial to the last realization period of the said amount which costs to Rs.35,040/-, Rs.18,000/- for the compensation on account of high electricity bills, Rs.10,000/- for the compensation of mental agony, and Rs.11,000/- for the legal demand notice charges.

Complainant has annexed Annexure-1 to Annexure-52 comprising of Emails, Job sheets and literature pertaining to guidelines for community noise, etc.  

3. Written Statement was filed on behalf of OP-3, wherein they have taken several pleas in their defence such as the complainant was not a consumer as the product was purchased by “M/S Mittal Computer and Typing Centre” and was being used for commercial purpose and there was no cause of action in favour of the complainant and against OP-3.

It was submitted that OP-1 was the flagship dealer of OP-3 i.e. APC now known as M/S Scheneider Electric IT Business India Pvt. Ltd., the complainant had purchased the UPS after having full satisfaction. Though, in their reply OP-3 at certain places has mentioned the product as Laptop (which seems to be the result of cut, copy, paste). It was submitted that in India, Schneider Electric sells UPS System USRC Series and SURT Series without batteries, as the installation of number of batteries required was based on the number of hours of back up required by particular customer. It was further submitted that the problem of self discharge of the batteries was due to the reason that the complainant had used faulty batteries whereas the UPS was working properly. Hence, no liability could be fastened on OP-3 as the complainant was using 3^rd party product. As the batteries were replaced by OP-2 and not by OP-3, the complainant was informed by technician on 23.12.2013 regarding the faulty batteries which needed replacement and UPS was working properly. Rest all the contents of the complaint have been denied.

4. OP-2 did not file their reply.
5. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP-3 was filed by the complainant where the contents of the complaint were reiterated. It was stated that the complainant was self employed and used product of OP-3 for earning of his livelihood for the purpose of self employment. Rest of the contents of the written statement have been denied.
6. Evidence by way of affidavit filed by the complainant where he has reiterated the contents of the complaint and has relied upon the annexure annexed with the complaint.
7. OP got examined Shri Biju Kuriakose, Country Service Manager of OP-3 who has also narrated the contents of their reply.
8. We have heard the submission of father of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP-1 and OP-3. Perusal of the record reveals that OP-2 did not file their reply and even failed to appear, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte. The foremost objection taken by OP-3 is that the product was being used for commercial purpose which has been denied in the rejoinder filed by the complainant, where it has been stated that the UPS was being used to earn his livelihood. If a look is made into Annexure 4, i.e. the quotation where UPS only is under 2 years of warranty and Annexure 6 (colly) is the invoice issued by OP-1 which is the bill for UPS and another bill is for the battery. Further, if  we look at Annexure 17, which is retail invoice dated 20.06.2013 which is issued by OP-2 and under “consignee” “Mittal Computer Typing Centre” along with address has been mentioned and under head “Buyer” (if other than consignee) Schneider Electric IT Business India Pvt. Ltd. Formerly known as AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION INDIA PVT. LTD. i.e. OP-3 has been written, thus it clearly reflects that 3 Valve Regulated Lead Acid Batteries (Ex 12-12) had been replaced against warranty at the instance of OP-3. This shows OP-3 as a buyer had endorsed the batteries manufactured by OP-2. Once OP-3 has endorsed the product manufactured by OP-2, they cannot evade from their responsibility by taking defence that the complainant was using 3^rd party product and there was problem with the batteries and not with UPS. The complainant has placed mails and job sheets where he has constantly faced the problem with the working of UPS. Hence, the UPS along with batteries was defective, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, no liability can be fastened on OP-1, as they are mere retailer. We direct OP-2 and OP-3 jointly and severally to refund Rs.73,000/- alongwith 6% per annum interest from the date of order till realization and further, the complainant is directed to hand over the defective UPS alongwith batteries to OP-2 and  OP-3 within 10 days from the date of receipt of order. We also award Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony & harassment inclusive of litigation expenses. Thereafter the OP-2 and OP-3 shall comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of UPS and batteries. If not complied the compensation of Rs.10,000/- shall carry 6% interest per annum from the date of order till realization.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                               (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)              

      MEMBER                                                                                              MEMBER

 

 

                                                 (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                     PRESIDENT