Punjab

Sangrur

CC/92/2015

Gurcharan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

GEE KAY Electricals - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Amit Kumar Walia

12 Jun 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

                                                Complaint No.  92

                                                Instituted on:    20.02.2015

                                                Decided on:       12.06.2015

 

Gurcharan Singh aged about 60 years son of Harnek Singh resident of Mehal Mubarak Colony Street No.2, Near Dr. K.G.Singla  Hospital, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     GEE KAY ELECTRICALS, Opposite Kaula Park, Sangrur-148001 through Authorized Signatory.

2.     Luminous Power Technologists Pvt. Limited C-8 & C-9, Community Center, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 through authorized signatory.  

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant          :       Shri Amit Walia, Advocate

For opposite party no.1     :       Shri Kali Ram Garg, Advocate.

For opposite party no.2     :       Shri Harinder Singh, A/A.

 

 

Quorum:         

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                        K.C.Sharma, Member

                        Sarita Garg, Member

 

ORDER

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

1.             Gurcharan Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he purchased a Luminous Battery Model LT-500 from the OP No.1 for an amount of Rs.10500/- vide bill number 1051 dated 22.01.2013. At the time of sale of battery the OP No.1 told that OP no.2 had given warranty of 30 days from the date of sale. The battery in question started giving trouble in July 2013 when the summer season was at its peak for which the complainant approached the OP No.1 and lodged his complaint to OP no.1 who sent his mechanic who took the battery and it was returned after one week saying that the same is now OK. The complainant again approached  the OP no.1 who told the complainant that he has got checked inverter which is OK. The OP No.1 also stated that  he will call  service engineer of the company but nothing was done.  In the month of December 2014, the complainant approached the OP No.1  and requested him to replace the battery with new one as the same is well within warranty.  But the OP No.1 flatly refused to replace the same with new one. The  Ops had sold the battery in question having manufacturing defect  and the same is required to be replaced with new one as it is well within warranty but Ops did not do anything. Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops,  the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to replace the battery in question with new one as the same is well within warranty of 30 months from the date of purchase or in the alternative to refund the price of battery i.e. Rs.10500/- along with interest @12% per annum. The Ops also directed to pay an amount of Rs.15000/- on account of mental tension, pain agony and  to pay an amount of Rs.25000/- on account of deficiency in service. The Ops further be directed to pay Rs.7700/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OP No.1, the purchase of the battery in question is admitted.  It is denied that the warranty offered was for 30 months.  The period of warranty in the warranty card issued by the OP No.1 at the time of sale of the battery in question was mentioned as two years and the same was duly explained/ told to the complainant.  It is stated that the complainant did not lodge any complaint with OP No.1 . Had there been any problem in  the working of the battery  the complainant should have brought the matter in the knowledge of OP no.1. No complaint  has ever been lodged  by the complainant within the warranty period of the battery i.e. upto 22.01.2015. It is denied that the complainant lodged any complaint in the month of August 2013. As no complaint of the complainant was pending with the OP No.1, there was no occasion to send any mechanic or any service engineer of OP no.2 to check  the battery of the complainant. As the complainant did not approach in December 2014 there was no occasion for the complainant to request the OP No.1 to get the battery in question replaced with new one. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.

3.             In reply filed by OP No.2, it is admitted that the complainant purchased  the said battery from the OP No.1 under warranty of 24 months from the date of purchase or 27 months from the date of manufacture which was expired in the month of January 2015 which is evidence  from the warranty card issued by OP along with battery. The OP no.1 informed the OP No.2  that the said battery was  sent to them by the complainant and same was found to be functioning  properly by them, therefore, no formal complaint regarding the same had ever been lodged.  If the complainant had any issues with the said battery whatsoever they should have  directly approached the OP  through their centralised call centre but neither the  complainant nor the  OP No.1 had ever approached the OP No.2 with any complaint for any kind of defect within the warranty period of the said battery.  The timing of the present complaint makes  it evidence that the acts of the complainant are pre-planned  and he by way of the present complaint is trying to shift the fault on the part of itself to the OP to make quick money and is also making an attempt to abuse the due process of law. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP no.2.  

4.             In support of his case the complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs has produced Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP2/1 and closed evidence.

5.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the documents placed on record we find that the main point of controversy in the present complaint is with regard to the non-replacement of the battery  purchased from the Ops within the warranty period.  The case of the complainant is that after the purchase of the battery in question he noticed that the warranty card contained warranty period 0 to 24months from date of sale or 27 months from the date of manufacturing whichever is earlier but on the battery itself  sticker pasted  by the Ops says that the warranty is of 30 months but the Ops have denied that the warranty has been extended  to 30 months  and the sticker also has a star marked which says that the warranty of 30 months is subject to the terms and conditions.

6.             We have gone through the documents placed on the file. The complainant has placed copy of the bill as Ex.C-2 which is dated 22.01.2013 and there is no other evidence with regard to the contention of the complainant that the battery in question was giving problem soon after its purchase. The OP No.2 has also mentioned in the reply that had the complainant approached the Ops then they have must lodge the complaint as the complaints are being entered and its numbers are given when the company  received any complaint from any consumer. The version of the OP No.2 is that the complaint is fabricated and has been filed after the expiry of the warranty period. From the evidence of complainant also, we do not find any evidence with regard to the complaint of the complainant that the battery in question  is giving trouble.  The OP no.1 has also denied the allegations of the complainant and has submitted that the complainant has approached  the OP No.1 after the expiry of the warranty period of 24 months.

7.             From the perusal of the documents we find that the complainant has purchased the battery on 22.01.2013 whereas the present complaint has been filed on 20.02.2015  which is certainly after the expiry of the warranty period  of 24 months.  The document Ex.C-3 placed on the record by the complainant is also not admissible as the same is dated 13.02.2015 and there is  no proof to the effect that the complainant has visited him before this period. The other documents in support of his evidence placed by the complainant i.e. affidavit of Hakam Singh Ex.C-11 is also not admissible  as the same is undated though it has been got attested on 4.5.2015  and the signatures of the deponent seems to have been taken on a blank paper  on the bare perusal of the document itself.

8.             So, in the light of above circumstances, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed however with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Announced.

                June 12, 2015.

 

 

(Sarita Garg)       (K.C.Sharma)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

    Member                        Member             President

 

 

 

BBS/-