JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

The complainant purchased a 10 KVA inverter from respondent No.2, who is a dealer of petitioner on 18.1.2008. The inverter had been manufactured by the petitioner company. A service engineer attended to the complaint of the complainant / respondent No.1 on 11.11.2009 and gave an estimate of Rs.12,000/-. The case of the complainant is that despite they having paid Rs.12,000/-, the inverter again stopped functioning after some time and the service engineer told them that the batteries had  dried up and should be replaced. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint filed on 4.9.2010.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner as well as its dealer. It was interalia stated in the reply filed by the dealer that the inverter was purchased on 18.1.2008 and had a warranty period of one year. It was further stated in the written version filed by the dealer that the first complaint in respect of the inverter was lodged by the complainant after the warranty period had already expired. It was alleged that the first complaint was lodged on 14.11.2009 and an estimate of Rs.12,000/- was given to the complainant who paid that amount whereupon the defective parts were replaced and a warranty of three months for the replaced parts was given. It was further alleged that the problem was with the battery which was manufactured by some other company and not with the inverter.

3.      The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.

4.      There is no credible evidence of the complainant having lodged any complaint either with the manufacturer or with the dealer before the warranty period expired on 18.1.2009. Though the complainant claims to have written a letter alleging defect in the inverter, there is no proof of the complainant having actually delivered that letter or having even dispatched it. Therefore, the service of any such letter before the expiry of the warranty period does not stand proved.

5.      The estimate given by the petitioner to the complainant for Rs.12,000/- was for replacement of some defective parts of the inverter primarily its mother board, as is evident from the report of the mechanic dated 14.11.2009 on page 82 of the paper-book and the letter sent to the complainant, available on page 85 of the paper-book.

6.      Admittedly, no technical evidence was produced by the complainant to prove any manufacturing defect in the inverter. Only the mother board was found to be defective and was replaced but it happened after the warranty period was already over. The defective parts were found for the first time on 14.11.2009. The warranty period  had already expired by that time. The petitioner was justified in charging  for the replacement of the defective part comprising mainly the PCB, which is an electronic component of the inverter and a warranty period of three months was then provided after placing the PCB. There is no evidence of the PCB having again become defective. The subsequent inspection report shows that there was problem with  the batteries which had become dry. The battery was of make AMCO as is evident from the service report available on page 84 of the paper-book. Since the warranty period had already expired by that time, the petitioner was not required to replace the batteries even if it is assumed that the batteries also were purchased from the dealer of the petitioner. In fact, if the batteries were manufactured by some other company and were found to be defective, the petitioner company will not be liable to replace these batteries and it would be only the battery manufacturer or the dealer who would be liable to replace the battery. However, in this case, there is no evidence to prove that at the time the battery was found defective, it was still in the warranty period. Therefore, no case for replacement of the inverter is made out either against the petitioner or against respondent No.2.

7.      If the batteries had become dry, it would mean that the battery water was not regularly filled in the batteries or the batteries had otherwise outlived there life. This cannot be said to be a manufacturing defect in the inverter.

8.      Admittedly, no technical expert was produced by the complainant to prove any manufacturing defect in the inverter. The parts which were found to be defective and required replacement had to be replaced after the warranty period for the inverter was over. Therefore, no case even for refund of the amount charged from the complainant for replacement of those parts, primarily the PCB of the inverter, is made out.

9.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, since no manufacturing defect in the inverter has been proved and the defective parts required replacement only after the warranty period was over, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same are set aside. The consumer complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.

10.    The amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the interim order of this Commission, shall be refunded to the petitioner alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount. The revision petition  stands disposed of.