DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.:1357 of 2009 Date of Inst:05.10.2009 Date of Decision:30.09.2010 M.K.Arora r/o H.L. 36, Phase-I, Mohali. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. Base Corporation Ltd., 106, through its Director, HVM House, 2nd Floor, Amarjyoti Layout, Intermediate Ring Road, Domlur, Bangalore-560071 through its Director. 2. Base Corporation Ltd., 181, Phase-1, Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Director. 3. Bunny, Authorized Distributor, Power Base, SCF 520, 1st floor, Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh, U.T. 4. Bunny, c/o Power Base, Shop No.7, Balongi, District Mohali, Punjab. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Gaurav Deep Goel, Adv. for complainant Sh.Indresh Goyal, Adv. for OPs No.1 and 2. Sh.Rajesh Verma, Advocate for OPs No.3 and 4. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.M.K.Arora has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to :- i) Change the defective batteries with new ones or to refund its price i.e. Rs.14,700/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. ii) Pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment etc. iii) Pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of professional loss. iv) Pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 07.01.2008, he purchased two batteries from OP-4 for a sum of Rs.11000/- vide invoice (Annexure C-1). The said batteries were manufactured by Base Corporation Ltd. (OP-1). The batteries were having a warranty for a period of 12 months. According to the complainant, soon after installation, the batteries started giving trouble. So he made several telephone calls to OP-4 who did not response properly. OP-4 kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately, it asked the complainant to approach the authorized service centre of OP-1. Accordingly, the complainant approached the service centre (OP-2) where the batteries were checked. Thereafter, the batteries were returned to the complainant without any repair or replacement . OP-2 refused to replace the batteries vide Annexure C-3. Even thereafter, according to the complainant, he approached OPs a number of times but to no effect. Ultimately, a notice (Annexure P-4) was served upon the OPs but to no effect. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OPs No.1 and 2, it has been admitted that the complainant purchased two batteries for Rs.11,000/-. It has also been admitted that the batteries were having the warranty of 12 months from the date of its purchase by the original buyer. The factum of visit of the complainant to the premises of OP-2 with batteries has also been admitted. According to OPs No.1 and 2, the batteries were accepted and checked. There was no defect in the batteries. However, there was no recharging so the batteries were charged and were handed over to the complainant in working condition on 24.07.2008. According to OPs No.1 and 2, the complainant had been using the batteries since then and after the expiry of the period of warranty, a legal notice was served by the complainant upon them. According to OPs No.1 and 2, if any, defect occurred after the expiry of the period of warranty, they are not liable to rectify the same free of costs. In these circumstances, according to OPs No.1 and 2, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. In a separate written statement filed by OPs No.3 and 4, it has been admitted that the complainant purchased the batteries from OP-4. It has been averred that the complainant approached OP-2 for repair or removal of the defects in the batteries as it (Op-2) is the authorized service of the OP-1 who is the manufacturer of the batteries. So OP-2 charged the batteries and handed over the same to the complainant in working condition. Now the period of warranty has expired so the complainant is not entitled to any relief as sought in the complaint by him. According to OPs No.3 and 4, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint qua them deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. It is the admitted case of the parties that the complainant had purchased two batteries from OP-4 on 07.01.2008 for a sum of Rs.11,000/-. The batteries were having warranty of 12 months i.e. upto 06.01.2009. It is also admitted that the complainant was not satisfied with the working of the batteries. So he approached OPs No.4 and 2. It is also admitted fact that OP-2 checked the batteries and returned the same along with jobsheet dated 24.07.2008 (Annexure C-3). The case of the OPs is that there was no defect in the batteries and the batteries were not recharged properly. So the same were recharged and were handed over to the complainant in working condition and the claim of the complainant for replacement or refund of the price was declined. Annexure C-3 is the jobsheet dated 24.07.2008 issued by OP-2. AS per this document, the claim of the complainant was rejected. However, there is nothing on record to show that the batteries were returned in working condition. The column regarding the return of material in good receipt does not bear the signatures of the complainant. In these circumstances, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the OPs to the effect that the batteries were returned in good condition on 24.07.08 has no force and the said argument is not supported by any document. 7. On the other hand, the case of the complainant is that oP-2 did not repair the batteries nor did it accept the claim of the complainant of replacement of the same. Admittedly on 24.07.2008, the batteries were within the period of warranty. So it was the duty of the OP-2 to replace the batteries as the batteries were suffering from some inherent manufacturing defect. 8. Faced with this situation, it was argued vehemently by the learned counsel for OPs that this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this matter. This argument too has no force. Op-2 has its office at Chandigarh. The batteries were checked and returned by OP-2 at Chandigarh and the claim of the complainant regarding the replacement of the batteries was also rejected by OP-2 at Chandigarh. So this Forum has got the jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a directions to OPs to refund Rs.11,000/- being the price of the batteries. The OPs are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. 10. This order be complied with by the OPs within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OPs shall be liable to pay Rs.18,000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 05.10.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 30.09.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
C.C.No.1357 of 2009 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 28.09.2010. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 30.09.2010 Member President Member
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
