IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 26th day of June, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 150/2022 (Filed on 16-07-2022)
Petitioner : Ani M. Kurian,
Madathirampil House,
Nattakom P.O.
Kottayam -686013
(Adv. Sunish G. Kumar)
Vs.
Opposite party : (1) Jayesh,
Service Engineer,
Excide Industries Ltd.
Near Amrithananthamayi Brahma
sthanam, Idappalli North P.O
Ernakulam - 686501
(2) Excide Industries Ltd.
Excide House, 59E Chowringhee,
Kolkata – 700020
Rep. by Managing Director
(For Op 1 and 2, Adv. Bobby John K.A.
Adv. Sabu P. Joseph and Adv. Arjun Sai
Krishna)
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complainant purchased a solar power system for which the battery was supplied by the 1st opposite party manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. But the said battery got defective and hence the solar system became useless for the last six months. Even after informing the 1st opposite party he did not care to rectify the defect or replace the battery. The opposite parties are bound to rectify the defects of the battery as the same was in warranty period. But they have not responded yet thereby causing a loss of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant. The complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards the loss caused to the complainant due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony along with litigation cost.
The opposite parties upon receipt of the notice sent by the Commission, appeared and filed a joint version contending that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party. The complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and misjoinder of unnecessary parties. The allegation that the complainant purchased the batteries in dispute from the 1st opposite party is false and denied. The 1st opposite party is only an employee of the company and he did not sell any battery to the complainant as alleged. On receiving a complaint from the complainant a service personnel inspected the battery and found that there was no manufacturing defect. It was found that there was no required charging current in the solar system for charging the battery. The required charging current was 10 – 20 Amp whereas the available current was only 5 Amp. The use of the battery by the complainant for several years shows that there was no manufacturing defect to the battery. For the proper performance of the battery, periodical maintenance, check-up and refilling of battery water also is required. There was sheer negligence on the part of the complainant in handling and giving proper service to the battery. There was no defect to the battery and no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
The complainant filed evidence affidavit along with 3 documents which were marked as Exhibit A1 to A3 series. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence.
On perusal of the pleadings and evidence the issues to be answered are
Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the opposite parties and if so what are the reliefs to be allowed?
POINTS
Answering the issues we have given a thoughtful consideration of the pleadings and evidence. The complainant has pleaded that the battery which was placed in the solar system purchased by him from a third party had been defective within the warranty period. The said dealer of the system is not a party to this complaint. There is no evidence to prove that the 1st opposite party had supplied the battery to the complainant’s solar system. There is no document to show that the exide battery manufactured by the 2nd opposite party was delivered by the 1st opposite party to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party being the manufacturer would be liable for the defects if found any. But the complainant has produced only the warranty cards and the purchase bill of the solar system. Nothing has been produced to show that the battery got defective in the warranty period or the same was communicated to the opposite parties etc. No expert has inspected the battery and reported to the Commission that the said battery had manufacturing defect or some other defects. The complainant has failed to prove any defect of the product or deficiency of service. So we cannot find any deficiency or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 26th day of June, 2023
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Retail invoice dtd.042 issued by MTI Solar Power
A2 – Warranty card issued by Muthuplackal Solar Industries
A3 series – Warranty card (6 nos.)
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Assistant Registrar
