STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                        UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

Bhagwant Singh S/o Balwant Singh, R/o H.No.15, Shivalik Vihar, Near UCO Bank, Naya Gaon, Mohali.

                                                                .…Appellant

                                Vs.

1]     Exide Industries Limited, through its Regional Manager, Exide House, Plot No.24/4, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh.

2]     Simran Motors, through its Proprietor, SCF No.44, Phase-VII, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

                                                                …. Respondents

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU,    MEMBER

                SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL,       MEMBER

Present:   Sh.Jagjot Singh Lalli, Advocate for the appellant.

                Respondent No.1 exparte.         

Sh.Tarlok Singh Chawla, Prop. of respondent No.2.

                                        ---

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                        This is an appeal filed by the appellant/complainant against the order, dated 30.08.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 506 of 2010 vide which, it dismissed the complaint.

2.             The facts, in brief, are that, the complainant purchased a Su-kam Inverter worth Rs.4300/-, alongwith Exide Inva Queen 500+ Battery worth Rs.8400/- from OP-2 (now respondent) vide Bill No.9787, dated 16.2.2009.  The said inverter was covered under warranty for 24 months.  It was stated that OP-2 installed the battery, at the residence of the complainant.   It was further stated that, from the very beginning, the performance of the Inverter was not satisfactory and it used to fluctuate, due to the weak battery.  It was further stated that the complainant approached OP-2, on various occasions, and each time, the electrician paid a visit to his residence, but the problem remained, as it was. It was further stated that, thereafter, on 24.7.2010 and 29.7.2010 one Mr.Dinesh electrician of OP-2, visited the house of the complainant but was unable to rectify the fault.  On being enquired, he told the complainant that the fault could be rectified only by an expert of the Company.  It was further stated that the complainant met one Sh.N.K.Pareek, Associate Manager of OP-1(now respondent) on 03.08.2010, who too did not entertain him even though the said battery was well within Warranty Period of 24 months.    It was further stated that the OPs, were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.             In their written reply, OP No.1, stated that on receipt of complaint, from the complainant, one Mr.Inder, Technical Engineer of OP No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and after checking the inverter, he reported vide his Report dated 5.8.2010 (Annexure-RA) that problem in the battery occurred due to improper servicing i.e. topping up of the battery, with distilled water was not carried out, as per recommendations. It was further stated that the over charging of battery usually occurred due to malfunctioning of inverter.  It was further stated that, OP No.1 was neither deficient, in service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.             In its written reply, OP-2, stated that the complainant, at his own level installed the battery and inverter.  It was further stated that the complainant never informed OP No.2 about any problem in the battery or inverter sold by it.  It was admitted that the complainant lodged a complaint over the telephone with Su-kam Power Systems Limited, with regard to problem in the inverter and the same was attended within 24 hours by Mr.Dinesh, an electrician thereof. It was further stated that report dated 24.7.2010 Ex.R-II-C of the Engineer revealed that No Water in the Battery established that the complainant failed to top up the battery with distilled water even after the lapse of 18 months leading to its damage due to over-charging.  It was further stated that, OP No.2, was neither deficient, in service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

5.             The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

6.             After hearing the Counsel for the parties, Sh.Kulwant Singh, Authorized Agent of OP No.2, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint. 

7.             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.

8.             We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, Sh.Tarlok Singh Chawla, Prop. of respondent No.2 and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

9.             The Counsel for the appellant/complainant  submitted that from the very beginning the performance of the Inverter was not satisfactory and it used to fluctuate due to the weak battery.  He further submitted that the appellant/complainant approached OP-2, on various occasions, and each time, the electrician paid a visit to the residence of the appellant/complainant, but the problem remained as it was. He further submitted that the OPs failed to rectify the defect, in the inverter, despite repeated requests of the appellant/complainant within the warranty period, which amounted to deficiency in service. It was further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being illegal, is liable to be set aside.

10.           Sh.Tarlok Singh Chawla, Prop. of respondent/OP-2 submitted that the appellant/complainant lodged a complaint over the telephone with Su-kam Power Systems Limited with regard to the problem in the inverter and the same was attended within 24 hours by Mr.Dinesh, an Electrician. He further submitted that as per the Engineer’s Report dated 24.7.2010 (Ex.R-II-C), there was No Water in the Battery, which itself showed that the appellant/complainant had failed to top up the battery with distilled water, even after the lapse of 18 months, leading to its damage due to over charging. It was further submitted that the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint of the appellant/complainant.

11.           From the perusal of the reports Annexure RA dated 05.08.2010 and Annexure R-II-C dated 24.07.2010 of the Engineers, it is evident  that there was no problem with the inverter. It is further evident from the report that there was no water in the battery, which proved that the appellant had failed to top up the same (battery) with distilled water, even after the lapse of 18 months of purchase.  On account of this reason, the battery failed to give proper backup. Thus, it is clear, from this report that the performance of the inverter was not satisfactory not because of any defect in the same but due to the poor maintenance of the battery by the appellant/complainant, as indicated above. It is evident from condition No.6 of the warranty card at page 39 of the District Forum file, attached with the bill at page 37 that the defects arising out of faulty electrical system, negligent maintenance, incorrect charging and filling, or improper handling of battery by unauthorized dealers/electricians were not covered by the Warranty. Moreover, in the warranty card Ex.C-2, at page 61 of the complaint case, containing Tips on Inva Queen 500+Battery care, it is clearly mentioned under para-3, that the “Cells lose water during use. Maintain electrolyte level within the band mark indicated, on the stem the level indicator”.  In the next column, it is further mentioned that ‘Top-up only with battery grade water, as necessary.   In Ex.C-2 warranty, it is not mentioned that top up with distilled water be done only after 24 months. In this situation, we are of the view that it was the appellant/complainant, who failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the warranty card, by not maintaining the water level of the battery, which resulted into poor performance of the inverter.  Hence, there was no deficiency in rendering service  on the part of the respondents/OPs.   

12.           For the reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit, in the appeal, filed by the appellant. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs and uphold the order passed by the District Forum.

13.           Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

14.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.                                                                                                  Sd/-

19^th  December 2011                             [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                                 PRESIDENT         

Sd/-

                                                             [NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                                                MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

                                                                                                MEMBER

cmg