Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/21/472

Rajnish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kirpal Sons Elecricals - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Joshi

06 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No:472 dated 13.10.2021.                               Date of decision: 06.08.2024.

 

Rajnish Kumar R/o. Prince Colony, Village Daad, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana (Punjab)                                                                                                                                                                                        ..…Complainant

                                                Versus

Kirpal Sons Electricals, Punjab Mata Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana-141013.                                                                               …..Opposite party 

Complaint Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

MS. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Gaurav Joshi, Advocate.

For OP                           :         Sh. Karan Puri, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased an inverter battery (Sukam Sumo-165) from the OP for a sum of Rs.10,400/- against invoice No.TI/18/19/2702 date 28.01.2019. The OP gave warranty card, having a warranty of 3 years on the said battery with assurance of trouble free working for at least three years. The complainant stated that in the month of November 2019, he approached the OP due to non-working of the battery. The OP asked the complainant that the battery is fine but inverter is not working properly upon which the complainant gave his inverter for repair. The OP repaired the inverter on charge basis but after few days again the same trouble occurred. The complainant approached the OP in the month of January but the OP did not respond despite number of calls and visits made by the complainant. However, in the month of February, the OP sent a person for inspection of battery who took the battery and advised the complainant to wait but till date no response has been received from the OP. The complainant many times approached the OP but to no effect. Even the complainant sent legal notice dated 04.06.2020 to the OP through Sh. Abhishek Aggarwal, Advocate posted on 17.06.2020 but no response was given by the OP.  Hence this complaint, whereby the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- along with interest and to pay Rs.76,000/- as compensation .

2.                Upon notice, the OP appeared and filed written statement and by taking preliminary objections, assailed the complaint on the ground of maintainability; no locus standi of the complainant to file the complaint; bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; suppression of material facts; the complainant has not come with clean hands etc.

                   On merits, the OP reiterated the crux of averments made in the preliminary objections. The OP averred that the complainant purchased the battery on 28.01.2019 from it and also gone through the terms and conditions mentioned in the invoice. As per term and condition No.5, it has been mentioned on the invoice that Guarantee/warranty of the material is liability of the company service centre. No compliant has been made with regard to defect in the product to the Service Centre of Sukam Company who has not been made party to the present complaint. The OP further stated that the legal notice of the complainant was duly replied.  Further there is no policy of the product and the OP is not liable to pay any amount as it was not responsible for any guarantee/warranty of the product.  The OP has denied that there is any deficiency of service and has also prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.                In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. P1  is the copy of invoice dated 28.01.2019, Ex. P2 is the warranty card, Ex. P3 is the legal notice dated 04.06.2020, Ex. P4 is the postal receipt and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, counsel for the OP tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Kirpal Singh, Prop. of M/s. Kirpal Sons Electricals along with documents Ex. R1 is the copy of invoice dated 28.01.2019, Ex. R2 is the copy of reply dated 23.06.2020 to legal notice dated 04.06.2020 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the parties and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents and written reply along with affidavit and documents produced on record by both the parties.

6.                Admittedly, the complainant purchased a Tubular Battery Su-Kam model SST 165 (hereinafter called as product) from the OP for a sale consideration of Rs.10,400/- vide invoice dated 28.01.2019 Ex. P1 = Ex. R1. However, the complainant experienced malfunctioning in the working of the product firstly in November 2019, then in January 2020 and lastly in February 2020. Even the complainant offered charges of repair for rectification of defective product. According to the complainant, in February 2020, a technician of the OP took away the product on the pretext of effecting repairs but the product was never returned to him. Even the legal notice dated 04.06.2020 Ex. P3 though replied by the OP vide Ex. R2, failed to evoke any positive response. The complainant has produced Su-Kam battery warranty card Ex. P2 wherein the warranty period and the policy of each model has been tabulated. As per the warranty card Ex. P2, the complainant purchased Model SST 165, which is reproduced as under:-

Model	Warranty Period	Policy
SST 1650	0-21 Month from the date of purchase OR 0-24 Months from date of manufacturing whichever is earlier	Free Replacement
	22-32 Months	New battery at 20% discount on prevailing MRP
	33-42 Months	New battery at 15% discount on prevailing MRP

 

7.                On the other hand, the OP by referring condition No.5 upon their invoice has tried to absolve himself from the liability. The condition No.5 as printed on invoice wherein following words have been written:-

“5. Guarantee/Warranty of the material is liability of the Company Service Centre.”

Bare reading of condition No.5 would reveal that by printing this condition, the OP has excluded its liability from the “material” and not from the “product” itself.

8.                Section 2(10) of The Consumer protection Act, 2019 defines the word “defect”, which is reproduced as under:-

“ ‘Defect’ means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or under any contract, express or implied or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods or product and the expression “defective” shall be construed accordingly.”

The definition of the ‘defect’ is wide enough to conclude any fault, imperfection or any shortcoming in the quality, quantity or standard etc. The very purpose of this Act is to protect the Consumer against the practices of selling the defective goods by the trader. Whenever a brand new product is sold to the consumer there is an implied contract that the product does not suffer from and will not suffer from any kind of fault or imperfection or standard which are required to be made. In the present case as well, after purchasing a brand new product, the complainant had been visiting and requesting the OP for the rectification of the product sold by the OP but the OP cleverly took shelter of condition No.5 printed on the invoice Ex. P1 = Ex. R1. Firstly that condition does not come to rescue of the OP as it covers the material of the product and not the product. The printing of such condition itself reflects malafide of the OP who is prepared to sell the product but is not inclined to provide post sale service to the gullible buyers. The product was also taken out of possession of the complainant on the pretext of repair and was not redelivered to him. The OP has adopted unfair trade practice and has rendered deficient services and is liable to pay composite costs of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

9.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed with an order that the OP shall pay a composite costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the complainant shall be held entitled for interest on the said amount @8% per annum from the date of order till its actual payment. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.       

10.              Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.

 

(Monika Bhagat)                                 (Sanjeev Batra)

Member                                                President         

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:06.08.2024.

Gobind Ram.