O R D E R <br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> The case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> Petitioner purchased a battery for an amount of Rs. 4,400/- for his vehicle 407 van, registration No. KL-5 J 3052. During the guarantee period the said battery become defective so, the petitioner c ontacted the second opposite party. The second opposite party examined the battery and asked the petitioner to submit the guarantee paper service booklet etc. to the first opposite party. Thus he submitted the particulars to opposite parties. Thereafter the petitioner demanded several times for return of the battery after curing the defects. Opposite parties had not heed to the demands of the petitioner. So the petitioner filed this petition seeking the relief directing the opposite party to refund an amount of Rs. 4,400, being the price of the battery, or to replace defective battery with a <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> brand new battery and also he claims Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1500/- as costs for the deficiency in service on their part.<br /> Opposite parties entered appearance and filed joint version denying the allegation and averments of the petitioner. According to the opposite party the sale price of the battery is only Rs. 3100/-. The opposite party contented that there was no manufacturing defects in the battery supplied to the petitioner. The opposite party contended that as per close 11 and 12 of the warranty external demaged battery will not come under the warranty coverage. On inspection of the battery both positive and negative posts of the battery is in a melted condition they contended that melting of the positive and negative post of the battery is due to short circuit in the wiring system of the vehicle. So they are not liable to replace the battery as per warranty condition so, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence the petition is to be dismissed with their costs.<br /> Points for consideration are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs. <br /> Petitioner’s evidence consists of affidavit filed by the petitioner, opposite parties evidence consists of their affidavit and Ext. B1 to B3 documents.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The opposite parties contention is that since the battery has no manufacturing defect they are not liable to replace or cure the defect of the battery as per warranty condition. According to opposite parties when the battery was brought to them the positive and negative poles of the battery were melted due to external damage due to the <br /> -3-<br /> short circuit in wiring system. The opposite party has also admitted in para 4 of the version that they are ready to give a new good condition battery with No. MHD 800. We are of the opinion that if the petitioner alleges that the battery was defective it is his duty to prove that the defect caused to the battery is a manufacturing defect. <br /> Since there is no positive evidence to prove any manufacturing defect, the petitioner cannot claim replacement keeping reliance on the decisionof Hon'ble State Commission, Kerala reported in 2004 (2) CPR 438 So, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed against the opposite parties. Point No. 1 is answered accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of the findings in point No. 1, the petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the petition. No cost is ordered. <br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 23rd day of April, 2008.<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President Sd/-<br /> Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member. Sd/-