BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                              : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 73/2018  Filed on 07/03/2018

ORDER DATED: 26/04/2022

ORDER

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR: MEMBER

                        Complainant had purchased and installed one inverter cum battery unit on 23/02/2012 from the opposite party.  On 22/01/2013 the installed system had not given sufficient back up and the system discharged.  The system had 3 years warranty and but the inverter has discharged within one year.  The complainant had demanded to the opposite party to replace the battery on several times.  On 01/03/2013 the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party for replacing the battery.  But the opposite party had given the impression to the complainant that they have repaired the battery and entrusted it to the complainant on 11/04/2013.  But actually the opposite party has given the same defective battery to the complainant without making any repair.  The opposite party had not replaced the battery as per the demands of complainant, hence this complaint.

                        Opposite party filed version stating the following contentions.  The opposite party had supplied and installed one 800va inverter along with a 100Ah/12V tubular battery with a warranty condition of one year for Inverter and 3 years for battery.  The complainant registered a complaint on 22/01/2013, stating that he is not getting sufficient back up from the installed system.  The service engineer, visited the site and observed that Inverter was working fine while battery was found discharged.  The opposite party had registered a complaint with battery suppliers.  Regarding the damage of the battery, with reference to the complaint, M/s. Exide Industries wanted to battery back to works for further analysis on failure.  After knowing the opposite party had taken the discharged battery from the customer site after providing a standby battery of rating 65Ah on 01/03/2013.  On 11/04/2013, the customer registered a complaint regarding the battery backup, which was identified as due to the lower capacity of battery which was provided as a standby of the original one for the satisfaction of the customer.  After that the inverter and battery were in good condition and opposite party have not received any complaint from the customer.  On 01/07/2013 opposite party delivered the original battery, with warranty card received from M/s.Exide after proper charging and the same was connected to the inverter at customer site.  The customer accepted the battery after verification.  After that no complaint/fault reported by the customer till 12/02/2018, indicating that the inverter system is working in good condition during these four years and 7 months time.  On registering a complaint on 12/02/2018 from the customer regarding the in sufficient back up of the invertor the Service Engineer visited the customer site.  On verification the battery was found weak due to aging, while inverter performance was perfectly ok.  Service Engineer suggested for changing the battery with a new one for the best performance as existing battery is not giving full back up.  At this state, he is either not willing to purchase new battery or to accept a standby battery for his urgent use, which was offered as free replacement.  The Inverter is still working without any failure during the entire period (for 6 years) from 23/02/2012, till now.  The battery is a bought out item, which again is from the best reputed manufacturer, the “Exide Industries”.  As per the terms and conditions of warranty by Exide Industries, the replacement or repair of a faulty battery is their option after checking the nature of faults, in this case, whatever be the method, the battery returned by them to us was delivered and connected at the customer site, as explained earlier.  In this case, the battery seems performing very good, delivered the required output for approximately 5 years without any failure.  The opposite party had done maximum possible support to the customer for the best performance of the products given to him. The opposite party admitted that they had installed and supplied the inverter to the complainant. 

                        Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents.  Ext.P1 to P11 marked from the side of complainant.  The opposite party not turned up for cross examination of complainant.  Opposite party filed proof affidavit and documents.  There after the opposite party not present for cross examination and marking documents.        

                        Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party?
2. Whether complainant entitled for relief?

Issues (i) & (ii): The opposite party admitted that they had supplied and installed one inverter and battery to complainant with a warranty of one year for inverter and 3 years for battery.  As per Ext.P4 dated 22/01/2013 shows that inverter is  OK, Battery discharge and noted that after charging the battery the same battery is replaced on 09/02/2013.  Ext.P5 to P10 shows the repair of battery within the warranty period.  Ext.P11 dated 21/02/2018 shows that the complainant send a letter to opposite party to replace the damaged battery.  The complainant stated that the opposite party had not replaced the battery.  The battery was damaged within the warranty period and which was only repaired by opposite party.  The documents produced by the complainant shows that the inverter with battery was damaged and which was only repaired by the opposite party within the warranty period.  The complainant had not used the inverter after the repair.  The opposite party had not produced evidence to disprove the case of complainant.  

In view of the above discussions we find that the act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

In the result complaint is allowed.  We direct the opposite party to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amount except cost shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till the date of payment/realization. 

                        A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements is forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 26^th day of April 2022.

   R

.C.No.73/2018

          APPENDIX

I           COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                   NIL

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

                  NIL

                                                        Sd/- 

PRESIDENT

R