BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARI .A : MEMBER
SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 46/2010 Filed on 15/02/2010
Dated: 16..05..2011
Complainant:
K. Murali, Sai ShruthyKOORA 46 A, Koottamvila, Vattiyoorkavu – P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 13.
(party in person)
Opposite party:
Hiltan Hundai Motors, TC 36/58(6), NH Bypass Road , Inchakkal, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By Adv. K.G. Mohandas Pai)
This O.P having been heard on 02..02..2011, the Forum on 16..05..2011 delivered the following:
ORDER
SHRI.G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT:
The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that, complainant had purchased a Hundai I 10 car bearing registration No. KL 01 AT 2047 from the opposite party, that the battery fitted with the said Car got damaged on 30/12/2009 during the warranty period of 2 years from 19/06/2008, that Company admitted it as a loss of battery charge and relieved the vehicle with a standby battery of the opposite party as a temporary measure, that Company informed him the availability of the battery vide letter dated 22/01/2010 complainant went their and inspected and found that the battery supplied by the opposite party was a used battery without original warranty card that complainant insisted for original warranty card, but opposite party was unwilling to give it, that on 29/01/2010 opposite party asked the complainant to return the standby battery and insisted to take the battery offered by the opposite party, opposite party had not given the new battery with original warranty card so far. Hence this complaint to direct opposite party to give a new battery with original warranty card or any other appropriate reliefs.
2. Opposite party filed version contending inter alia that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts, that complaint is bad for non-joinder of the manufacturer of car or battery, that complainant purchased an I 10 car on 19/06/2008 and the battery fitted with the said car was a brand new one. It is worked till 30/12/2009 according to complainant, opposite party identified it as a loss of battery charge and reported to the same to manufacturer for warranty consideration and relieved the vehicle with a standby battery of the opposite party, that at the instruction of the manufacturer, their local dealer of the Exide battery M/s. United Electricals, Pattom, considering the warranty coverage replaced a brand new battery fully charged and instructed the complainant to receive it on 22/01/2010, that complainant however adamently contended that the battery offered as replacement is an old battery in appearance, that complainant alleged that non-issuance of new original warranty card is the cause of such contention, that opposite party obtained a letter from the supplier / dealer of battery to the effect that the new battery supplied is brand new one and shall be binding till the expiry of the original warranty, that new warranty cards were not supplied in case of replacement of battery during the warranty period is the practice in vague prevailing, that however complainant refused to accept the battery inspite of the true facts convinced, that complainant also refused to return the standby battery supplied by the opposite party as a temporary measure, that opposite party is ready to supply another new battery once the standby battery is returned, that the grievance of the complainant is vague, bald and baseless. Hence opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The points that arise for consideration are:
Whether the battery fitted with I 10 Car purchased by the complainant is having manufacturing defect?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get a new battery with original warranty card?
Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 & P2 subject to proof. In rebuttal, opposite party has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. D1 to D3.
4. Points (i) to (iii): Admittedly, complainant had purchased a I 10 Car on 19/06/2008 from the opposite party. According to complainant the battery fitted with the said Car got damaged on 30/12/2009 during the warranty period of 2 years from 19/06/2008. There is no point in dispute that opposite party admitted it or identified it as a loss of battery charge and relieved the vehicle with a standby battery of the opposite party. It has been contended by the complainant that as Company had informed him the availability of the battery by opposite party vide letter dated 22/01/2010, he went there and inspected and found that the battery supplied by the opposite party was a used battery without original warranty card. Though complainant insisted the opposite party to give original warranty card they did not give it. Complainant's evidence consisted of oral testimony and Exts. P1 & P2. Ext. P1 is the copy of the letter dated 22/01/2010 issued by the opposite party to complainant reminding him of the availability of Car battery with them at PTP Nagar workshop. Ext. P2 is the copy of the letter dated 29/01/2010 sent by the opposite party to the complainant stating that they had already sent the old battery to the Vendor M/s. United Electricals, Pattom for warranty consideration and as per Exide warranty policy M/s. United Electricals Pattom sent them a replacement battery (Sl.No. 354907, 409) for handing over to him, that on inspection, complainant has opined that the said battery is an old one, that in order to convince him that the said battery is new one, they have received a letter from the Vendor stating that the battery No. 354907,409 and warranty of the said battery will be in continuation with warranty of old failed battery. It has been contended by the opposite party that the new warranty cards are not supplied in case of replacement of battery during the warranty period, and that the battery offered was new one. According to opposite party the original warranty would continue till 19/06/2010. It has been further contended by the opposite party that complainant refused to accept the new battery nor he returned the standby battery supplied by the opposite party as a temporary measure. It has also been contended by opposite party that the new battery supplied by the manufacturer is now being used by the opposite party as their standby battery and it has also been contended by the opposite party that they are ready to supply another new battery once the standby battery is returned. Opposite party's evidence consisted of oral testimony of the opposite party and Exts. D1 to D3. Opposite party has not been cross examined by the complainant thereby the affidavit of the opposite party remains uncontroverted. Ext. D1 is the copy of the letter dated 22/01/2010 addressed to complainant by the opposite party. Ext. D2 is the copy of the letter dated 29/01/2010. Ext. D3 is the copy of the warranty certificate dated 20/2/2010 issued by United Electricals, Pattom. As per Ext. D3, for replacement of defective batteries during warranty period the extended warranty is valid upto 2 years from the date of registration of the vehicle. Herein though commission application has been filed by the complainant after closure of evidence and hearing from both sides, we deem that it is not necessary since opposite party has admitted that the old battery fitted with the vehicle was defective. Admittedly old battery was defective, which was already handed over to opposite party by the complainant and as an interim measure opposite party relieved the vehicle with a standby battery of the opposite party. Complainant has been still running the vehicle with the standby battery of the opposite party. Further opposite party was ready to replace the old defective battery with a new one but without a new warranty card. The stance of the opposite party is that new warranty cards are not supplied in the case of replacement of battery during the warranty period. It is pertinent to point out that no loss happened to complainant since opposite party relieved the vehicle with a standby battery as an interim measure. Further within a reasonable period opposite party had informed him by Exts. D1 & D2 to receive the brand new battery already sent by the dealer of the Exide battery. Further dealer of the Exide battery by virtue of Ext. D3 disclosed their stance that the offered battery is not having warranty card as warranty period is 2 years from the date of registration of the vehicle. Anyway, now, the said warranty period is over, still opposite party is ready to supply another new battery once the standby battery is returned by the complainant. It is to be noted that the manufacturer of the Exide battery is not in the party array. The issue regarding warranty etc. is to be announced by the manufacturer and not by the dealer. Further it is to be noted that a consumer purchases a good to use it at its maximum capacity. That does not mean that the said good can be used only for its warranty period, rather a consumer expects its use / life beyond the warranty coverage, thereby the consumer may intend that he will get the good rectified or replaced with a new one when such a good develops defects/troubles within a warranty period. A warranty provides the consumer with a protection from any manufacturing defects. In the case at hand opposite party admitted the defect of the battery, relieved the vehicle with a standby battery as an interim measure, and offered a new battery within a reasonable period with warranty extended to the original period. Complainant is still running the vehicle with the standby battery. Complainant did not accept the new battery on the ground that opposite party failed to offer a new warranty card. In view of the aforesaid discussion and evidence available on records we accept view the opposite party that for replacement of defective batteries during warranty period the extended warranty is valid. Herein, now the warranty extended to the original period is over; complainant has not returned the standby battery to the opposite party and has not received the offered battery till date, thereby we do not find any deficiency on the part of opposite party. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstance of the case, we deem that justice will be well met if opposite party is directed to supply another new battery with one year warranty from the date of supply.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite party shall supply a new Exide battery to complainant with one year warranty from the date of supply, on acceptance of the new battery, complainant shall return the standby battery to opposite party. There will be no compensation in facts and circumstances of the case. Parties shall bear and suffer their costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be 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 16th day of May, 2011.
G. SIVAPRASAD,
PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI .A,
MEMBER.
S.K. SREELA,
MEMBER .
ad.
C.C.No: 46/2010
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : K. Murali
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Copy of the letter dated 22/01/2010 addressed to the complainant
P2 : " letter dated 29/1/2010 addressed to the complainant.
III. Opposite party's witness:
DW1 : S.S. Sanjeev
IV. Opposite party's documents:
D1 : Copy of the letter dated 22/01/2010 issued by the opposite party
D2 : " letter dated 29/1/2010 issued by the opposite party.
D3 : " warranty certificate dated 20/2/2010
PRESIDENT
