STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

1.            M/s Base Corporation Ltd., 106, through its Director, HVM House, IInd Floor, Amar Jyoti Layout, Intermediate Ring Road, Domlur, Bangalore-560071.

2.            M/s Base Corporation Ltd., 181, Industrial Area, Phase-1, Chandigarh through its Manager/G.M.

……Appellants/OPs 1 & 2

V E R S U S

1.            M.K.Arora r/o HL-36, Phase-I, Mohali.

Respondent/Complainant

2.            Bunny, Authorized Distributor, Power Base, SCF 520, 1st floor, Motor Market, Manimajra, Chandigarh, U.T.

3.            Bunny c/o Power Base, Shop No.7, Balongi, District Mohali, Punjab.

              ....Respondents/OPs 3 & 4.

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:          Sh. Indresh Goel, Adv. for the appellants.

                   Sh. Gaurav Deep Goel, Adv. for respondent No.1

                   Sh. Ankur Chaudhrie, Adv. for respondents No.2 & 3.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    This appeal is directed against the order dated 30.9.2010, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 and directed the OPs/appellants & respondents No.2 & 3 to refund Rs.11,000/- and also to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation for mental  agony and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation within 45 days failing which they were to pay Rs.18,000/- alongwith penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing till realization.

2.                      The facts, in brief, are that on 07.01.2008, the complainant purchased two batteries, manufactured by OP-1, from OP-4 for a sum of Rs.11000/-, having a warranty of 12 months. However, soon after installation, the batteries started giving trouble. He made several telephone calls to OP-4 who did not respond properly and kept on putting off the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately, asked the complainant to approach the authorized service centre of OP-1. Accordingly, he approached the service centre (OP-2) where the batteries were checked but the same were returned to him without any repair or replacement and OP-2 refused to replace the batteries.  Even thereafter, he approached the OPs a number of times and also served a notice upon them, but to no effect.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                      OPs No.1 & 2 in their reply admitted the purchase of the two batteries for Rs.11,000/- having warranty of 12 months. It was also admitted that the complainant visited the premises of OP-2 with the batteries, which were accepted and checked but no defect was found in the same.  However, as there was no recharging so the batteries were charged and were handed over to the complainant in working condition on 24.07.2008. It was stated that the complainant had been using the batteries since then and after the expiry of the period of warranty, a legal notice was served by the complainant upon them. It was submitted that if any defect occurred after the expiry of the period of warranty, they were not liable to rectify the same free of costs. Remaining averments were denied being wrong.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

4.                      OPs No.3 and 4 (it is one and the same person with different addresses) in his separate written reply also admitted the purchase of the batteries by the complainant. It was admitted that the batteries were received by OPs 1 & 2 under condition of warranty and upon checking no fault was found in the same.  It was denied that the complainant visited the shop of OP-4.   It was stated that as the period of warranty expired so the complainant was not entitled to any relief as sought in the complaint. Remaining averments were denied being wrong.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made

5.                      After hearing the ld. Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                      Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/OPs 1 & 2.

7.                      We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully. 

8.                      The ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the batteries remained in working condition, those were used by the complainant for the full period of warranty and thereafter the present complaint was filed and, therefore, it should not have been be allowed.  This contention is opposed by the ld. Counsel for the respondent/complainant. The complainant has alleged that after some time the batteries started giving trouble and within few months of its installation, they died out completely.  It is then mentioned in paras 2 & 3 of the complaint that he had been approaching the OPs for replacement of the batteries but they continued dilly dallying and ultimately when the batteries were taken to the office of OP-2, they did not entertain his request and rejected the claim  vide  Annexure  C-3.  This document is now being explained by OP-2/appellant in the manner that actually the batteries were repaired, these started working properly and due to this reason the claim of the complainant was rejected.  There is no such mention in Annexure C-3, even this much is not mentioned if the batteries had been repaired or recharged by them.  It, therefore, cannot be said if the batteries had started working on 24.7.2008 when Annexure C-3 was issued.  The OPs have not produced any evidence to suggest if after that date also the batteries had been working properly.  The ld. District Forum, therefore, rightly accepted the contention of the complainant/ respondent that the batteries had died out before 24.7.2008 when Annexure C-3 was issued and this happened within the warranty period.

9.                      It was also argued by the ld. Counsel for the OP/appellant that right from 24.7.2008 till 15.6.2009 when the notice (Annexure C-4) was issued, the complainant took no action which shows that the batteries were in working condition.  This argument also is devoid of merit.  In fact, the batteries, which are proved to have already died out before 24.7.2008, cannot be said to have been revived on that date simply because the complainant took some time in serving a notice (Annexure C-4) on the OPs.  It may be mentioned that the limitation period for filing a complaint is two years.  The said period would start from 24.7.2008 when the claim was rejected by the OPs.  The present complaint was filed on 5.10.2009 and it cannot be said if there was any inordinate delay in filing the complaint due to which the batteries should be presumed to be working properly.

10.                   The ld. District Forum has directed the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.11,000/- and to pay Rs.7,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.  However, no order has been made for the return of the batteries, presumably for the reasons as mentioned in para 6 of the impugned order that the batteries were not returned to the complainant in working condition.  Annexure C-3, however, shows that goods being sent back to customer after testing.  It is true that there is no mention in this declaration if the batteries were in working order at that time, as is being alleged by the OPs now.  It, therefore, cannot be said if the batteries were in working condition.  However, the impugned order needs modification as the said batteries are liable to be returned to the OPs after they refund the amount of Rs.11,000/- alongwith compensation and costs.

11.                   The facts of the case show that the OPs have unnecessarily harassed the complainant, did not refund the amount or repair the batteries, which were in warranty period, and also did not return the amount when demanded.  He was mentally and physically harassed for which a compensation of Rs.7,000/- cannot be said to be excessive.

12.                   In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed with costs with modification mentioned above.  Costs of litigation are quantified at Rs.5,000/-.

                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

1^st September, 2011                         

Sd/-

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER