Delhi

North East

CC/217/2018

Sh. Jai Prakash Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.R. Battery & Service - Opp.Party(s)

23 Oct 2020

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 217/18

 

In the matter of:

	Shri Jai Prakash Singh S/o Shri Dan Bahadur Singh R/o:-H.No. F-130, Ram Park Extn. Near BansalChowk LoniDehat, Ghaziabad, U.P.-201102	Complainant
	Versus
1.       2           3	B. R. Battery & Service A-12, Khajuri Bus Stand, Bhajanpura Wazirabad Road, Delhi-110053   Amara Raja Batteries Ltd. Amaron Service Centre B-93A PanchsheelVihar, Near Triveni Commercial Complex Sheikh Sarai Phase-I, New Delhi-110017   Amara Raja Batteries Ltd. (Formerly Amaron Battery Ltd.) B-93A PanchsheelVihar, Near Triveni Commercial Complex Sheikh Sarai Phase-I, New Delhi-110017   Regd. Office at:- Amara Raja Batteries Ltd. Karakambadi, Tirupati-517520 Andhra Pradesh	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:       JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

15.10.2018 23.10.2020 23.10.2020

 

 

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President(Addl. Charge)

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

Mr. Arun Kumar Arya, President (Addl. Charge)

 

1. Facts in brief made out in the present complaint are that the complainant had purchased an AMARON Inverter Battery wherein model 150AH bearing NO. TAE 01189129092 manufactured by OP3 from OP1 on 27.07.2015 for a total sum of Rs. 11,000/- vide invoice / serial No. 1386. The subject battery carried a warranty of one year and guarantee of three years. However, the subject battery work normally for next 7 months only from the date of purchase and started giving problems in charging, fast discharge and not giving current to home appliances with which it was attached. When the complainant raised this issue with OP1, he was  refused any help by OP1 and was asked to contact OP2 Authorized Service Centre (ASC) of OP3 which when approach by the complainant regarding the said defect, replaced the subject battery in August 2017 but at the same time of replacement, service person of OP2 took away the guarantee card of the said battery to OP2 and never returned the same to the complainant and nor did OP2 give any other warranty card to the complainant with respect to the replacement battery. The said battery also worked only for 5-6 months and became dysfunctional regarding which the complainant registered a complaint with OP2 on 22.07.2018 vide complaint No. 298156 on which a service person was sent to the house of the complainant by OP2 who then took the defective battery with him to OP2 and never returned the same and the said battery is still lying with OP2. The complainant has stated that when the complaint was raised by him on 22.07.2018 regarding defect in the battery, it was still in the three years guarantee period for which reason the complainant had asked for its replacement from OP2 but instead the service person of OP2 not only took away the defective battery alongwith the guarantee card but also never replace the same. The complainant had also register a complaint against OPs with the Mediation Cell of Delhi Government on 04.08.2018 but the proceedings failed due to non-appearance of OPs. Therefore as a last resort the complainant was compelled to file the present6 complaint alleging deficiency of service on the part of OPs which has caused him torture, humiliation and financial loss and prayed for issuance of direction and OPs to replace the subject battery with a brand new one alongwith compensation of Rs. 15,000/- towards mental torture and financial loss and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation cost.
2. Complainant has attached the copy of purchase invoice on which 3 years guarantee and 1 years warranty has been hand written by OP1 and copy of screen shot of complaint acknowledgement from OP2 and OP3 dated 22.07.2018 pertaining to registration of complaint No. 298156 by the complainant.
3. Notice was issued to the OPs on 22.10.2018. OP1 entered appearance on 22.02.2019 and filed written statement  vide which it took the preliminary objection that OP1 is only a dealer to sell the AMARON batteries manufactured by OP3 and all the responsibility regarding guarantee, warranty and service of the sold battery is that of OP2 and OP3 (ASC and Manufacturer) and that the complainant had never intimated about any alleged defect in the battery in question to OP1 nor any notice or intimation regarding any mediation process was received by OP1. For the defence so taken OP1 prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. OP2 and OP3 entered joint appearance through its service engineer on 16.01.2019 but failed to appear and filed its written statement and therefore its defence was closed on expiry of the mandatory period of 45 days for filing written statement as stipulated under the Act vide order dated 25.03.2019.
5. Rejoinder and evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant in rebuttal to defence taken by OP1 vide which complainant reemphasized  that the OP1 is the authorized dealer/ seller of OP3 and therefore its fully responsible to represent the brand value, market reputation, customer satisfaction, warranty and guarantee of all its products and therefore has legal responsibility to sell genuine and fresh products to its customers and also to represent the warranty and guarantee of all items / products of OP2 and OP3. Therefore complainant prayed for relief claimed.
6. Despite several opportunities granted to OP1 to file its evidence, not only did OP1 failed to comply with the said order but also did not appear after filing its written statement July 2019 onwards and therefore its right to file evidence was closed and OP1 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.11.2019.
7. Written arguments were filed by complainant in reassertion of his grievance against OPs.
8. We have heard oral arguments addressed by the complainant in person and have carefully perused the documents placed before us.
9. The complainant has admitted that the initially purchased AMARON battery from OP1 on 22.07.2015 was replaced by OP2 in August 2017 i.e. after 2 years of its use but has submitted that its guarantee card was taken away by the authorized service person of OP2 and later on when this replacement battery became dysfunctional and complainant lodged a complaint with OP2 and OP3 on 22.07.2018 the service person of OP2 took the defective battery away never to be returned or replaced. This allegation leveled by the complainant against OP2 and OP3 has gone un-rebutted in view of willful abstention on the part of OP2 and OP3 to appear or take any defence and therefore an adverse inference to this effect is drawn against OP2 and OP3 for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service in not only having failed to replace or return the defective battery repaired but also to have taken away the guarantee card of the said battery. We therefore allow the present complaint against OP2 and OP3 and direct them to replace the subject inverter battery with a brand new one with fresh warranty and guarantee as applicable to it to the complainant alongwith payment of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards harassment inclusive of litigation charges. No order against OP1 is being passed since the initially purchased defective battery from it on 22.07.2015 by the complainant already stood replaced by OP2 and OP3 in August 2017 which then became defective on 22.07.2018 and was taken away by OP2, ASC of OP3 and it is regarding this replacement battery that the present complaint has been filed by the complainant. Let the order be complied with by OP2 and OP3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
10. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per Regulation 21 (1) of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
11.   File be consigned to record room.
12.   Announced on  23.10.2020

 

(ArunKumar Arya) President(Addl. Charge)

(Sonica Mehrotra)  Member