BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

 Complaint No.212 of 2018

      Date of Instt. 15.05.2018

      Date of Decision: 17.12.2021

Sukhdeep Kumar son of Shri Baldev Raj resident of Village Johal, Post Office Bara Pind, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Exide Industries Ltd., 59-E, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-7000020 through its Authorized Signatory.

2.       Anand Traders, Govt. Contractor & General Order Supplies, Authorized Dealers Exide Batteries, Guru Nanak Market, Ladowali Road, Jalandhar-144001 through its Authorized Signatory.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)                                           Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)

Present:       Sh. Sandeep Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. M. S. Jass, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.1.

Sh. Naveen Chadha, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein he has alleged that the complainant purchased one Exide battery bearing description No.IM1500A3E4COO003916 for Rs.9500/- in cash, vide retail invoice no.2037 dated 04.01.2016 from OP No.2 with 18 months guarantee. On the assurance of OP No.2, the complainant purchased the above said battery and installed the same battery at his house on the inverter. That after about one year of its purchase defect occurred in the battery installed on inverter at the house of the complainant as stated to give low back up. The complainant approached OP No.2 and requested OP No.2 either to remove the defect occurred in the battery or to replace the same with the new one as the battery in question is still under guarantee period. The OP No.2 told the complainant to lodge a complaint through online system with the customer care centre of OP No.1. On the complaint of the complainant, the employee of the Customer Care Centre of OP No.1 visited the house of the complainant and noted down the defect in the battery in question. That the employee of the Customer Care Centre of OP No.1 told the complainant that the manufacturing year of the battery in question is 2014 and the OP No.2 had sold the expired date battery to the complainant and on the date of the sale i.e. on 04.01.2016 the battery in question was already beyond the expiry period and was not in a condition of sale and rejected the complaint of the complainant. That thereafter the complainant visited the business premises of OP No.2 alongwith battery in question and OP No.2 gave another old battery to the complainant and kept the battery in question with himself by saying that this battery will solve the purpose of the complainant for some time and during this period the OP No.2 will get the battery in question replaced from OP No.1. OP No.2 further told the complainant to give back the old battery and take the new exchange battery from the OP No.2 after the OP No.2 gets new replaced battery from the company. The complainant agreed to the same but to the utter surprise of the complainant the said old battery was also found to be defective and did not work. The complainant again visited OP No.2 and informed regarding the non-functioning of the said old battery too and OP No.2 told the complainant to come after 2-3 days for getting the new replaced battery.

2.                That on 20.06.2017, the complainant again visited at the business place of OP No.2 and requested the OP No.2 to give a new battery to the complainant as the battery in question was under guarantee period but OP No.2 started putting off the mater on one pretext or the other and finally refused to replace the battery in question. Instead of replacing the battery in question OP No.2 misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant also got served a legal notice dated 21.06.2017 upon the OPs, but all in vain and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to  pay a sum of Rs.9500/- as the price of the battery alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its sale till the realization of the amount and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of damages and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed its written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP at all and is liable to be dismissed since this complaint has been instituted with malafide and concocted grounds. It is further averred that in accordance with the established principles of law governing consumer protection, the complainant is not a consumer of answering OP and as such, the complaint under reply is not tenable before this Commission constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is guilty of suppression, misrepresentation and distortion of material facts. On merits, it is admitted that the OP is the manufacturer of Exide Battery and other Exide products under the name and style of Exide Products Ltd. and it is also admitted that the OP No.2 is selling products of answering OP, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                OP No.2 filed its separate written statement and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint has been filed only to harass the answering OP No.2. It is further averred that in the complaint is false allegations are there and complaint is based on self made story. On merits, the factum in regard to purchasing the battery by the complainant from the OP No.2 is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.  

5.                Rejoinder to the written statements filed by the complainant, whereby he reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.

6.                In order to prove his case, the complainant alongwith his counsel tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CA alongwith some document Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence.

7.                In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, the counsel for the OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP1/A alongwith some documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-6 and closed the evidence. OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP2/A and closed the evidence.

8.                We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

9.                The case of the complainant is that he had purchased one Exide battery for Rs.9500/- from the OP No.2 and paid the entire amount. The battery carried a guarantee of 18 months, but after about one year, the defect occurred in the battery and on lodging the complaint the defect was found as manufacturing defect. The battery was replaced, but again it could not work and he has suffered mental torture. He has proved on record the document Ex.C-1 copy of Invoice, Ex.C-2 Copy of Field Services Report, Ex.C-3 copy of Legal Notice and Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 postal receipts.

10.              On the other hand, the OP No.1 has alleged that the battery in question was purchased from OP No.2 under the scheme ‘Finished Goods Non Moving Stock’ sold on discount price to the dealer by the OP No.1 without warranty or guarantee. The battery sold under FGNS scheme is a liquidate stock of company. The company is not liable for any compensation. Even the employees of the company told the complainant that the battery in question is not under warranty and the complainant admitted that he is in the knowledge of this fact, therefore, the complaint qua OP No.1 is not maintainable.

11.              The OP No.2 has admitted that the complainant purchased the battery in question for Rs.9500/-. He was given this battery on a very low price. He was made aware that the battery has no warranty. No guarantee was ever given by the OPs, even after getting the notice. The OP No.2 has asked the complainant to get the same checked from OP No.2, but the complainant did not turn up. OPs have produced on record terms and conditions of warranty Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3. The email from the company/OP No.1 is Ex.OP-4 and Customer Service Circulars Ex.OP-5 and Ex.OP-6.

12.              As discussed above the fact of purchase of the Exide battery has been admitted by the OP No.2. As per the Invoice Ex.C-1 the battery was purchased on 04.01.2016. It is no where mentioned in the Invoice that the battery was sold under FGNS scheme at a lower price, rather in the terms and conditions on the bottom of the Invoice, the guarantee of 18 months has been mentioned and in the terms and conditions, it has been mentioned that guarantee is against any manufacturing defect only. It has no where been mentioned that no warranty or guarantee was available on this product. As per the job sheet Ex.C-2 the complaint of the complainant was battery backup problem and the claim was rejected due to late file and the problem found was low back up. It is proved that the defect occurred in the battery within a period of 1½ years i.e. within a guarantee or warranty period.

13.              From the documents, it is proved that there is deficiency in service. It is also proved that OP No.1 is a reputed company dealing with the batteries. The problem occurred with the battery within one year of its purchase. The OPs have not proved that it was given on low price and without warranty/guarantee. Whether the OP No.1 sold the battery to OP No.2 without warranty and under FGNS scheme, this is the matter between OP No.1 and OP No.2. The fact remains that the battery was sold to the complainant as per invoice Ex.C-1 with warranty/guarantee by OP No.2. So, they are liable to replace the battery. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief and as such, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed qua OP No.2. The complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed. OP No.2 is directed to replace the battery with new one of same model and of same price and complainant is directed to return the original battery to them and further OP No.2 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.3000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

14.              Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna                Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj     

17.12.2021         Member                          Member           President