DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.765 of 16-12-2014

Decided on 18-09-2015

Mathura Dass aged about 60 years S/o Bal Mukand R/o Maur Mandi, District Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1.Luminous Power Technologies Private Limited, C-8 and C-9, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, through its CMD/MD/GM/Chairman/President.

2.M/s Rajindra Electronics, Thana Road, Maur Mandi, District Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh.M.P Singh Pahwa, President.

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

Sh.Jarnail Singh, Member.

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh.Ashok Gupta, counsel for the complainant.

For Opposite parties: Opposite party No.1 ex-parte.

Sh.Mohit Attri, counsel for opposite party No.2.

ORDER

M.P Singh Pahwa, President:-

1. The complainant Mathura Dass (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties Luminous Power Technologies Private Limited and Other (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one Luminous battery model No.1LTY18048 for Rs.10,200/- vide bill No.294 dated 23.12.2011 from opposite party No.2 with 36 months warranty for every type of defect on behalf of opposite party No.1. It was also assured by opposite party No.2 that in case, there would be any defect in the battery, it would be replaced with new one, without any delay or complainant can get the refund of its price.

3. It is alleged that the battery was not of good quality as it remained defective and was not in operative condition. The matter was brought to the notice of opposite party No.2 many times, it always retained the battery for repair, but the same was never set right. Ultimately, the agent of opposite parties issued the delivery bill, in which the battery was rejected without any reason. The battery also remained with opposite party No.2 on 20.9.2014, 26.9.2014 and 20.11.2014.

4. It is further alleged that in the letter/delivery challan dated 26.9.2014, opposite parties gave false remark of battery is OK. Opposite parties never issued the job sheets. The complainant requested opposite parties either to replace the battery with new one if not set right or to refund its price as committed, but opposite party No.2 disclosed the complainant that all assurances were given on behalf of opposite party No.1 and battery was also sent to opposite party No.1 for new one, but opposite party No.1 refused to oblige the complainant.

On this backdrop of the facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and prayed for recovery of Rs.5000/- as cost and refund of Rs.10,200/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

5. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through its authorized representative Sh.Inderpal Singh and filed its separate written version, but after 25.8.2015, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.1. Hence, ex-parte proceedings were taken against opposite party No.1 on 18.9.2015.

In written version, opposite party No.1 pleaded that the complaint is false, wrong, baseless, not maintainable and bad in law and has been filed only for the purpose of tarnishing its goodwill. Opposite party No.1 is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at C8 & C9 Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi and is a well renowned manufacturer providing portfolio of solutions for packaged power, diversified generation, electrical control & safety and energy optimization and is doing the business with the brand name 'Luminous' having its regional offices, branch offices in different parts of India. Opposite party No.1 has a good reputation in the country for the quality and durability of its products and services.

6. It is further pleaded that within the warranty period of the battery i.e. 36 months from the date of purchase, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 claiming defects in the battery on three different occasions. The service engineers of opposite party No.1, after a thorough checking on the first two occasions, found the battery working normally, with no defects whatsoever and returned the same to the complainant. The complainant again brought the battery to the service centre of opposite party No.1 for the third consecutive time, its service engineers after an initial inspection ceased that the electrolyte of the battery had been contaminated by him. Since the contamination of the electrolyte was a breach of terms & conditions on the part of the complainant, as such the warranty of the battery was void and battery was duly returned to him without any repairs. Any claim whatsoever against the battery is not maintainable against opposite party No.1. It is also pleaded that this complaint is just an abuse of process of law by the complainant to harass opposite party No.1 by making a false claim on the battery knowing the fact that its warranty is void. As such, opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay any compensation whatsoever to the complainant.

After aforesaid pleadings, opposite party No.1 raised preliminary objections that the complaint is misconceived and not maintainable. It is admitted that the complainant purchased one battery for Rs.10,200/- from opposite party No.2 on 23.12.2011. It is further revealed that firstly, the battery was brought to the service centre of opposite party No.1 on 8.5.2013, its engineers after thorough checking concluded that the battery is working normally and returned the same to the complainant through opposite party No.2 vide delivery challan No.DC135LD2000160 dated 14.5.2013 and second time the said battery was brought to the service centre of opposite party No.1 on 20.9.2014 and was again tested by service engineers and found to be working normally, with no defects whatsoever, the battery was returned to the complainant through opposite party No.2 vide delivery challan No.DC149LD2000267 dated 26.9.2014. The battery for the third consecutive time was brought by the complainant through opposite party No.2 to the service centre of opposite party No.1 on 14.11.2014, its service engineers after an initial inspection ceased that the electrolyte of the battery had been contaminated by the complainant. Since the contamination of the electrolyte was a breach of the essential warranty terms and conditions on the part of the complainant, as such the warranty of the battery was void. Opposite party No.1 has reproduced Clause 3 of the terms & conditions as under:-

“The warranty of your battery shall become null and void if:....Any Electrolyte or material other than battery grade distilled water is used in the battery.”

The battery was duly returned to the complainant through opposite party No.2 vide delivery challan No.58 dated 20.11.2014 without any repairs. As such, any claim whatsoever against the battery is not maintainable against opposite party No.1. It is pleaded that the complaint has been filed only to harass opposite party No.1 and got the battery replaced by any means whatsoever, even if it involves unlawful tactics like that of tampering the battery. The complaint is a gross abuse of the process of law and is liable to be dismissed under section 26 of 'Act' with heavy costs.

7. On merits also, opposite party No.1 denied all other averments and reiterated its pleadings as taken in preliminary objections and detailed above.

8. Opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing its separate written version. In written version, opposite party No.2 raised the legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable and complainant has no locus-standi and cause-of-action to file this complaint against it. This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint as no fee has been paid by the complainant. The complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum.

9. On merits, opposite party No.2 has also controverted all the material facts. However, it is admitted that the complainant purchased one battery of Luminous from opposite party No.2. It is denied that opposite party No.2 gave warranty for every type of defect for 36 months. The complainant was made understood regarding the warranty that the same is as per the terms and conditions of opposite party No.1. It is also asserted that as and when the complainant approached opposite party No.2, it asked him to contact the authorized service centre of opposite party No.1 as opposite party No.2 is only seller of the good and is not competent to replace or repair the battery in question.

After controverting all the material facts, opposite party No.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint.

10. Parties were afforded opportunities to produce evidence.

11. In support of his version, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavits dated 16.12.2014 and 20.3.2015 (Ex.C1 and Ex.C6); photocopy of bill, (Ex.C2) and photocopy of warranty, (Ex.C3); photocopy of delivery challan, (Ex.C4) and photocopy of letter, (Ex.C5).

12. Opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Inderpal Singh dated 9.7.2015, (Ex.OP1/1); photocopies of delivery challan, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3); photocopy of letter, (Ex.OP1/4); photocopy of warranty, (Ex.OP1/5) and photocopy of delivery challan, (Ex.OP1/6).

13. Opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mangat Rai dated 9.7.2015, (Ex.OP2/1) and submitted written arguments.

14. We have heard learned counsel for parties and have gone through the written arguments.

15. Learned counsel for complainant has reiterated his version as set up in the complaint and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for complainant that it is not disputed that the complainant purchased battery from opposite party No.2, manufactured by opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.1 has brought on record copy of delivery challan dated 20.11.2014 relating to the battery purchased by the complainant. As per this delivery challan, the claim has been rejected by alleging electrolyte contamination. The complainant has deposed that he has not tampered the battery with electrolyte. Opposite parties were to establish this fact. Therefore, the rejection of the claim of the complainant by opposite party No.1 is unjustified and amounts to unfair trade practice. As such, the complaint be accepted.

16. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has reiterated his averments as set up in its written version and detailed above. It is further submitted by learned counsel for opposite party No.2 that the battery in question was purchased by the complainant on 23.12.2011 and there was warranty for 36 months, which was to conclude on 23.12.2014. The complainant earlier complained regarding the fault, but on checking there was found no fault, delivery challans, (Ex.OP1/2 and Ex.OP1/3) prove this fact. The complainant has alleged defect on 20.11.2014 i.e. at the end of warranty period. On checking, it was found that the electrolytes were contaminated. The complainant has not brought on record any other evidence to prove any other fault in the battery. The warranty card relied by the complainant shows that the warranty is to become null and void, if any electrolyte or material other than battery grade distilled water is used in the battery. Therefore, the fault noted by opposite parties was not covered under the warranty. As such, opposite parties have justification to reject the claim of the complainant.

17. We have given careful consideration to these submissions.

18. Admitted facts are that the complainant purchased one battery from opposite party No.2 on 23.12.2011. The battery in question is manufactured by opposite party No.1. There was warranty for 36 months by opposite party No.1. The complainant has alleged that the battery remained defective and was not in a running condition, but opposite parties never set it right. The complainant has not disclosed the dates when the defect was noticed. The complainant has also not mentioned particular defect in the battery. The complainant himself has produced on record delivery challan dated 26.9.2014, (Ex.C4), which proves that the battery was O.K. Opposite party No.1 has brought on record other delivery challan dated 14.5.2013, (Ex.OP1/2). As per this delivery challan also, battery in question was found O.K (While Testing Revised Battery). It is further alleged by the complainant that ultimately, the agent of opposite parties issued delivery challan, in which the battery was rejected without any reason. Opposite party No.1 has produced delivery challan dated 20.11.2014, as per this document, the reason for rejection was 'electrolyte contamination'. Therefore, the averment of the complainant that the battery was rejected without any reason is against the document. When it was brought to the notice of the complainant that the rejection is due to electrolyte contamination, he was expected to rebut this fact in the complaint, but he remained silent regarding this aspect. The complainant has himself brought on record warranty card, (Ex.C3). As per this document also, the warranty is to become null and void, if any electrolyte or material other than battery grade distilled water is used in the battery. In these circumstances, it cannot be concluded that opposite party No.1 has rejected the claim of the complainant without any justification.

19. For the reasons recorded above, the conclusion is that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. As such, the complaint is dismissed without any order as to cost.

20. This case could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency.

21. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Pronounced in open Forum:-

18-09-2015

(M.P Singh Pahwa)

President

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member

(Jarnail Singh)

Member