BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.567 of 2019
Date of Institution: 19.09.2019
Date of Decision : 16.08.2021
Sandeep Singh son of Sh. Baldev Singh, resident of V.P.O. Shekhukhera, Tehsil Ellanabad, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Classic Sales, Authorized Dealer of Exide Batteries, Near RSD School, Opposite Paras Hospital, Sirsa through its Proprietor/ Authorized Signatory.
2. Exide Industries Limited, Service Centre of Exide Batteries, 71, Vikas Nagar, Opposite Gate No.3 of GJU, Hisar- 125001 (Haryana) through its Proprietor/ Authorized Singatory.
3. Exide Industries, Regional Office at 8/42, Kirti Nagar, Industrial Area, New Delhi through its Regional Manager.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. JASWANT SINGH…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. D.S. Sandhu, Advocate for complainant.
None for opposite party no.1.
Sh. Sanjay Sihag, Advocate for opposite parties no.2 and 3.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ops) on the averments that complainant had purchased an Exide battery (MGRIDDIN65 LH) Exide Milage bearing Sr. No.A3B9G026026 3B92 for his Car Maruti Swift Dezire from op no.1 vide invoice No.075 dated 25.04.2019.That after deducting the old battery of complainant, the op no.1 charged an amount of Rs.6200/- from complainant including SGST @14% and CGST @14% and the complainant paid the said amount to op no.1 in cash. That at the time of sale of said battery, the op no.1 had given full guarantee of 24 months and warranty of six months and it was assured by op no.1 on behalf of ops no.2 and 3 that if any defect or problem occurred in the said battery, then same will be replaced with new one by op no.1 on the same day. That after purchase of said battery, complainant got installed the said battery in his Car. It is further averred that in the first week of June, 2019, the complainant noticed that there is some problem in the battery as it was not working and did not give current or power to the car, due to which starting problem occurred in the car. The complainant took his car to the mechanic who after inspecting the car found that there was no problem in the car but the battery of the car was defective, on which complainant approached op no.1 and disclosed him the above said fact and handed over the battery to him. That after two days, the op no.1 returned the said battery to the complainant with the remarks that battery is ‘OK’ and assured that no problem will occur in the battery in future and even if any problem will occur, then the said battery will be replaced with new one. It is further averred that in the last week of July, 2019 complainant was to go to out of station and when the complainant tried to start his car, it could not be started. The complainant called a mechanic at his home, who after inspecting the car, found the same problem in the battery and told that there is some defect in the battery. The complainant again approached the op no.1 who told him that battery will be sent to Hisar to op no.2 for its replacement and complainant handed over the battery to op no.1 who assured that it will be replaced with new one within two days. That after two days, when the complainant approached op no.1 to get delivery of the battery, then it was told by him that battery has been sent to Hisar and new battery will be sent by op no.2. Then the complainant personally contacted op no.2 and asked about his battery, but op no.2 did not give any satisfactory reply to the complainant. That thereafter, he made called on the customer care number of op no.3 on 3.8.2019 and registered a complaint no. NHR-0394785. That thereafter, the complainant time and again made several rounds to op no.1 and also telephonically contacted to ops no.1 and 2 and requested to replace the battery with new one, but all in vain, rather the op no.1 threatened the complainant. That without the battery, car of complainant is parked in the house of complainant as unused. There is manufacturing defect in the battery and all the ops are liable and responsible to replace the said battery of complainant with new one as the battery is well within full guarantee period and said battery is still in the custody of ops. That finding no other way, the complainant got sent a legal notice dated 4.9.2019 to the ops through his counsel, but the op no.1 had given a false reply and report, but the ops neither replaced the said defective battery with new one nor refunded the cost of the same. That in this way, the ops have caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and have also caused deficiency in service towards the complainant. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. Ops appeared and filed written version. OP no.1 filed written version raising preliminary objections that complainant has concealed the true facts from the Forum. In fact, one Shri Malkeet Singh purchased an Exide Battery for his Car from the answering op, who is the authorized dealer of the company for which invoice no.075 dated 25.04.2019 was issued in the name of complainant. As per rules, the manufacturer op no.2 is responsible for all the defects in the battery. Shri Malkeet Singh approached the answering op with the complaint regarding the defect in the battery, which was discharged and answering op get the battery discharged and advised him to get the vehicle checked from the competent electrician. He again approached the answering op with the complaint in the battery on 28.7.2019. The battery was again charged but the complainant was not satisfied and made a pressure to exchange the defective battery with new one. The answering op advised him to approach the manufacturers through them, so that reasonable action can be taken by the company. On 30.7.2019, answering op was approached by some person on telephone and told him that he is the office bearer of District Bar Association Sirsa and threatened him to solve the matter by exchanging the old battery with new one. There after, only after three hours, he demanded a service battery for his car till the final decision of the company. The answering op supplied him new service battery bearing no.OBL600LMF Mark Amaron (Black). On their request on telephone, new battery Marka Exide EY700L was sold to him for his Enova Car and the battery was fitted in their car parked in a plot situated at Gobind Nagar Sirsa and a bill no.323 dated 30.7.2019 for Rs.6000/- was issued in the name of Sh. Gurmeet Singh son of Shri Malkeet Singh, VPO Suchan, Sirsa. They assured that the payment of the bill will be sent by them after 1-2 hours. The answering op approached them several times on telephone for the payment of the bill, but the amount has not been paid till date. The report from the service center was received regarding the old battery which was sent to them through courier, which was received by them. The payment of the sold battery and service battery has not been received by answering op till date, although they are threatening for the consequences. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied.
3. Ops no.2 and 3 filed written version and submitted that no guarantee whatsoever was ever given to the complainant rather only the warranty was given to him for a period of total 30 months from the date of purchase. There was no problem whatsoever in the battery purchased by the complainant. It is further submitted that battery was taken over by op no.1 from complainant and on inspection by the technical hand of the company, the same was found okay and handed over the same to complainant back. In this manner, it is clear that ops have discharged their duties by making inspection of the battery and did not commit any deficiency in service. It is further submitted that on inspection of the battery, same was found discharged due to technical problem in the vehicle which was already brought into the notice of complainant but the complainant instead of getting repaired his vehicle made false complaints regarding the battery. Now the battery of complainant has been got charged by ops and same is lying with them in Okay condition as per report of technical hand. The complainant was informed in this regard and he has been asked to take over the possession of the same and to hand over the alternative service battery to the ops but he is adamant not to take over the same from the ops and has filed present false complaint. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint has been made.
4. The complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, copy of legal notice Ex.C2, postal receipt Ex.C3, copy of legal notice Ex.C4, postal receipt Ex.C5, copy of legal notice Ex.C6, postal receipt Ex.C7, copy of invoice Ex.C8, copy of guarantee card Ex.C9, copies of track reports Ex.C10 to Ex.C12.
5. On the other hand, proprietor of op no.1 suffered a statement on 3.1.2020 to the effect that op no.1 has filed its written version and the order passed by the Forum will be acceptable to them and as he is only one proprietor/ owner of classic sales, so he is unable to appear before the Forum on each date of hearing. However, today an affidavit of Sh. Bansi Dhar Narang Manager/ authorized person of op no.1 has been furnished by learned counsel for ops no.2 and 3.
6. Learned counsel for ops no.2 and 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Bansidhar Narang, Manager/ Authorized person Ex.RW1/A and affidavit of Sh. Kamod Ranjan, Service Engineer as Ex.,RW2/A and copy of delivery challan Ex.R1.
7. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for ops no.2 and 3 and have perused the case file carefully.
8. Learned counsel for complainant has contended that ops have failed to replace the defective battery which is lying with them since the month of July, 2019 rather op no.1 gave a political threat to the complainant. He has further contended that due to the act and conduct of the ops, the complainant has to purchase a new battery for his above said car, otherwise car could not be used by him and the complainant has suffered financial loss as well as physical and mental harassment due to behavior of the ops and as such complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation besides refund of the price of the battery in question.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops no.2 and 3 has refuted the allegations of complainant as per their written version and prayed that complaint be dismissed.
10. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. The complainant has also placed on file copies of legal notices Ex.C2, Ex.C4 and Ex.C6 sent to the opposite parties regarding his grievances. From the copy of invoice dated 25.4.2019 Ex.C8, it is evident that complainant had purchased the battery in question for an amount of Rs.6200/- from op no.1 including GST charges and he was given guarantee/ warrantee of 24 plus 6 months. But just after one month of its purchase i.e. in the first week of June, 2019 the complainant noticed some problem in the battery as it was not working and was not giving current or power to the car due to which starting problem occurred in the car. The battery in question was given to op no.1 and after two days, op no.1 returned the said battery to complainant with the remark that the battery is OK and he also assured the complainant that no problem will occur in the battery in future, however, again in the last week of July, 2019 complainant faced same problem in the battery as car could not be started and the mechanic from whom the complainant got inspected the car found the problem in the battery and stated that there is some defect in the battery. From the perusal of evidence on file, it is revealed that battery has been retained by the ops since the month of July, 2019 i.e. for two and half years but the ops have failed to deliver the same in working condition and have also failed to replace the same with new one despite the fact that complainant has suffered problem in the battery for two times. The ops have also failed to refund price of the battery to the complainant and the complainant has to purchase a new battery for running his car and as such the complainant has successfully proved his case that there is inherent defect in the battery and now there is no need of the battery in question to the complainant as he has purchased a new battery for running his car. From the documents available on file, it appears that battery in question is defective one. The ops have failed to prove their version by leading cogent and convincing evidence. Though, ops no.2 and 3 have produced on file copy of delivery challn as Ex.R1 in which it is mentioned that battery found OK, battery received in deep discharge condition and after charge battery found OK and returned to the dealer. But this document Ex.R1 itself speaks the truth that battery has been returned to the dealer i.e. op no.1 who has kept the same with him for such a long period of two and half years and has not handed over the same to the complainant. It also proves that there was manufacturing defect in the battery and as such same was not returned back to the complainant by the dealer as if there was no any defect in the battery, same should not have been retained by the dealer and should have been handed over to the complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the ops for such a long period for such a petty matter. As such, the opposite parties are liable to refund the cost of the battery in question alongwith interest and they are also liable to pay heavy compensation to the complainant for the harassment and mental agony.
11. In view of our above discussion, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite parties to refund the amount of Rs.6200/- i.e. price of the battery in question to the complainant alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of purchase of battery in question i.e. 25.4.2019 till actual realization within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above said amount of Rs.6200/- will carry interest @12% per annum. We also direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant within above said period. All the ops are jointly and severally liable to comply with this order. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs.
File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Commission. Member President,
Dated: 16.08.2021. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
Typed by:
Jagdish Kumar (Stenographer)
