IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 29th day of November, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S, President
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member
CC No.149/2023 (Filed on 20/05/2023)
Complainant : Biju.S, S/o Srinivasan,
Devasamparambil House,
Purakadu P.O, Ambalappuzha,
Alappuzha - 688 561
Now residing & working as Salesman,
Pulimoottil Jewellers,
Karukachal, Kottayam – 686 540.
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) The Managing Director,
EXIDE INDUSRIAL,
Registered Office,
Exide House, 59E,
Chowringhee Road,
Kolkatta – 700 020.
(2) The Manager,
UNIVERSAL ELECTRONICS,
Sreenikethan Building,
Manimala Road,
Karukachal, Kottayam – 686 540.
Additional Opposite Party (3) The Manager,
(As per order in IA No.284/2023 PP Batteries,
dated 16/08/2023) 38/1963, High School Junction,
Metro Pillar No.469,
Edappally, Kochi – 24.
O R D E R
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member
This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant bought Exide 6LMS 1S0 exide battery manufactured by the first opposite party from the second opposite party on 27/06/2020 at a price of Rs.18,000/- by paying Rs.16,000/-. The warranty of 36 months has been given for the battery but the inverter did not work in 2023 when the power went out, after the complainant contacted the second opposite party and registered a complaint on the phone, the technicians came and repaired the inverter but when it started showing the same problem again, he complained again. A second Inverter was purchased on 02/05/2023 for Rs.7,800/-. After purchasing the new inverter, it did not work again. On the basis of the complaint given to the second opposite party, on 9/05/2023, the technicians of the first opposite party came and checked and said that there was no fault in the inverter, but the battery is faulty.. Despite several complaints, the opposite parties are not ready to replace the battery, repair it or provide a new battery. The battery was damaged only due to manufacturing defect of the 1st opposite party. The act of the opposite parties in not repairing the battery is the service defect of the second and third opposite parties. The plaintiff’s complaints to the first and second opposite parties were in vain due to improper trade practice and because of which the plaintiff has suffered irreparable loss. Therefore, the complaint is filed for a direction to replace the damaged battery with a new one, otherwise, the cost of the battery Rs.16,000/- with 12% interest. this case has been filed.
Though the opposite parties received the notice from this Commission they did not care to appear before the Commission or file their version. Hence the opposite parties were set ex-parte.
The complainant has filed evidence affidavit along with two documents which were marked as Exhibits A1 and A2.
On the basis of the pleadings and evidence on record we would frame the following issues to be answered :
1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite party
2. If so what are the reliefs to be granted?
ISSUES :-
The complainant’s case is that he had purchased an inverter battery of the first opposite party from the second opposite party which turned defective for several times but the opposite parties did not care to rectify the defect or replace the battery with a new one even though it was in the warranty period.
The complainant filed two documents. Exhibit A1 is the warranty card issued by the first opposite party in which it is clearly stated that 36 months warranty is given by the company. The battery was purchased on 27/06/2020 and the warranty period is up to 36 months ie. 27/06/2023. The Exhibit A2 is the service report issued by the service centre of the 1st opposite party on 09/05/2023 which is within the warranty period. So it is evident that the subject battery got defective within the warranty period and hence as per the law of warranty, the opposite party/seller is bound to act as per the conditions of warranty. Here we see that the opposite party has not acted according to the warranty conditions that the battery was not rectified within the warranty free of cost. Thus the opposite party has been deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant.
Though the complainant alleged that he had to purchase a new inverter for Rs.7,800/-, no proof has been produced to substantiate this. The complainant has stated in the affidavit that he was producing the bill for the new inverter which was purchased by him according to the direction of the opposite parties but no such bill or any evidence is before us. Hence on the basis of the above discussion we allow the complaint vide the following order:
(1) The opposite parties are directed to replace the complainant’s inverter battery with a new one free of cost within 30 days failing which pay Rs.16,000/- with interest from the date filing of the complaint i.e, 20/05/2023 till realisation.
(2) The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards compensation and no cost is ordered.
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount shall carry 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29th day of November, 2023
Smt.Bindhu.R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S, President Sd/-
Sri.K.M.Anto, Member Sd/-
APPENDIX :
Exhibits from the side of the Complainant :
A1 - Bill No.6627 dated 27/06/2020 for Rs.16,000/-
issued by the 2nd opposite party with Warranty Card
A2 - Copy of service report dated 09/05/2023 issued by the
service centre of the 1st opposite party
Exhibits from the side of Opposite parties :
Nil
By Order,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
