BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.629 of 2019
Date of Institution: 24.10.2019
Date of Decision : 23.08.2021
Dheeraj Kumar, aged about 27 years son of Shri Subhash Chander, resident of House No.247, Chattergarh Patti, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus
1. Jai Mahavir Sales, 19-RSD Colony, Main Street, Sirsa through its Authorized person/ Proprietor.
2. Microtek Manufacturing Company, H-57, Udyog Nagar, Main Rohtak Road, Delhi- 110041 through its Managing Director.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. JASWANT SINGH…………………………PRESIDENT
MRS. SUKHDEEP KAUR…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. Sandeep Kamboj, Advocate for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 already exparte.
Sh. Balkar Singh, Representative on behalf of opposite party no.2.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ops) on the averments that he had purchased an Inverter Model 1100-VA EB18 GNEHFAC018470 of Microtek company alongwith one battery of Altratek from op no.1 on 24.10.2018 on payment of Rs.3500/- for Inverter and Rs.9850/- for the battery in cash. The op no.1 issued bill dated 24.10.2018 and also made an endorsement regarding sale of battery on the bill. That at the time of purchase of battery, the op no.1 assured that the inverter and battery is of branded company and also gave two years guarantee. It was also assured by op no.2 on behalf of op no.2 to remove the defect immediately without any costs and in case of manufacturing defect, said inverter as well as battery shall be replaced by the company. It is further averred that after purchase of both the battery and inverter, the complainant got installed the same through an experienced mechanic sent by op no.1 and after installation of the same, the complainant well maintained the inverter battery by putting required water in the battery time to time as per instructions of the ops. That despite well care and maintenance of the inverter and battery by the complainant, defect developed in the said inverter/ battery after short time of its purchase and same stopped functioning properly. The complainant made complaint to op no.1 and upon this, the op no.1 asked the complainant to refer complaint at the Toll Free number of the company upon which complaint was made at the toll free number of the company. The Mechanic/ Engineer of op no.2 visited the premises of complainant and he checked the inverter and stated that this problem has arisen because of the defect in the battery. Upon this, complainant again approached the op no.1 and complained about the defect in the battery being purchased from op no.1. That thereafter the op no.1 got checked the functioning of the battery and the mechanic of op no.1 for the reasons best known to him stated that this problem is due to the defect in the inverter. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant approached the op no.1 again but op no.1 did not hear him. The backup of the inverter and battery is just 10-15 minutes and as such the inverter battery became dead stop. That due to act and conduct of the ops, the complainant could not get the benefit of the inverter and battery despite spending a huge amount of Rs.13,350/- as same became defective just within one year. The complainant is entitled to replacement of the inverter and battery with new one or refund of the amount of Rs.13,350/- alongwith interest besides compensation of Rs.50,000/- for harassment and mental agony from the ops. Hence, this complaint.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties. None appeared on behalf of Op no.1 before this Commission despite service of notice and therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Op no.2 appeared and filed written version taking certain preliminary objections that complaint against op no.2 is without any cause of action, hence deserves outright dismissal; that complaint is bad for non impleading of the manufacturer of battery as well as for being unspecific about every averment; that it is clear that there is dispute between the complainant and op no.1 and answering op has been unnecessarily dragged in uncalled litigation. That complaint of complainant was immediately attended by technician of answering op and fault was found in the battery which was informed to the complainant and again on dated 18.12.2019, company engineer visited the complainant and checked UPsEb/ Inverter and found it in order. The UPsEb/Inverter was found in perfect working order. The complainant also believes that the fault is in the battery. He himself admits that the system worked for few months and the back up started decreasing because of fault in the battery. That even otherwise, it is fact that op no.2 is manufacturer of UPSEB/ Inverter only and has no concern with the battery. The alleged battery seems to be locally made, so it’s manufacturer and bill is not available. The complainant has filed a bill of Rs.3500/- for purchase of the UPSEB/ Inverter only. It is further submitted that even in the layman’s common sense, the UPSEB/ Inverter is perfect and absolutely OK in the circumstances and facts stated in the complaint, when it is admitted that the UPSEB/ Inverter works for any period whatsoever because it is the battery which retains charge and supplies the same to the UPSEB/ Inverter, from where it is supplied further in the electricity form. The time of backup is based on the capacity of the battery to retain and supply charge. It is further submitted that present complaint claims decreasing / less back up period and it is well known that the power back up system is made of two parts i.e. UPSEB/ Inverter and the battery. The complaint is with respect to the battery, hence the complaint against answering op deserves outright dismissal being without cause of action. On merits, while reiterating the pleas taken in the preliminary objections, it is submitted that UPSEB/ Inverter sold for Rs.3500/- is absolutely okay and in perfect working order and cannot work alone without attaching good compatible battery to complete the perfect backup system. Remaining contents of the complaint are also denied and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. Learned counsel for complainant has tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CW1/A and copy of invoice dated 24.10.2018 Ex.C1 with endorsement on the back of bill as Ex.C1/A.
5. On the other hand, Sh. Balkar Singh, Representative on behalf of op no.2 suffered a statement that written version filed on behalf of op no.2 be read as evidence and no separate evidence is to be filed on behalf of op no.2.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as representative on behalf of op no.2 and have perused the case file carefully.
7. The complainant in order to prove his complaint has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. He has also placed on file copy of tax invoice Ex.C1 which goes to show that inverter in question was purchased by complainant from op no.1 for an amount of Rs.3500/- and on the back of the said invoice, an endorsement (Ex.C1/A) has been given by op no.1 in hand written that price of the battery is Rs.9850/-. The grievance of the complainant is that despite spending such huge amount of Rs.13,350/- on purchase of inverter and battery, he could not take benefit of the same as fault developed in the inverter and battery just after some time of its purchase and despite repeated complaints to both the ops, his grievances have not been redressed.
8. On the other hand, as per averments of op no.2 which is manufacturer of the inverter in question, the complaint of the complainant was immediately attended by its mechanic and he found no fault in the inverter and fault is in the battery and op no.1 is liable for the fault in the battery. The op no.1 has not bothered to appear before this Commission despite service of notice and opted to be proceeded against exparte. So, the pleadings as well as evidence led by complainant against op no.1 goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. The op no.1 is liable to redress the grievances of the complainant regarding any fault in the battery in question whereas op no.2 is liable to redress his grievances regarding any defect in the inverter since op no.2 has not placed on file any expert/ mechanical report that there is no defect in the inverter and fault is in the battery only.
9. In view of our above discussion, we direct the opposite party no.1 to replace the battery in question with a new one of same make and price and will also got inspect that after replacing the battery, the inverter works properly or not. In case, despite replacement of battery, the inverter in question manufactured by op no.2 does not work properly and does not give back up, then op no.2 will be liable to replace the inverter in question with a new one of same make and price. Further in case, the battery of same make and price is not available with op no.1, then op no.1 will be liable to make refund of the amount of Rs.9850/- to the complainant. It is also made clear that in case inverter of the same make and price is not available with op no.2, then op no.2 will be liable to make refund of the amount of Rs.3500/- to the complainant. We also direct the op no.1 to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant as it was the only op no.1 who could resolve the grievances of complainant well in time but he has failed to do so. The ops are liable to discharge their above said liabilities within a period of 45 days, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 71/ 72 of the Act against defaulting opposite party. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Commission. Member President,
Dated: 23.08.2021. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
Typed by:
Jagdish Kumar (Stenographer)
