Date of filing : 14-12-2011
Date of order : 28-09-2012
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC. 342/2011
Dated this, the 28th day of September 2011
PRESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Gangadharan, } Complainant
Pilakkathodi House, R/at Kallyot, Pullur,
Periya Vilalge, Hosdurg Taluk,
Kasaragod.Dt.
(Advs. M.K.Baburajan &Shibha.M.Samuel)
1. The Manager, Kasaragod Power House, } Opposite parties
Old Press Club Junction, Kasaragod.
(Adv. M.Mahesh, Kasaragod)
2. India Tech Ltd, Govt.I.T.I. Road,
Nayanmarmoola, Vidyanagar, Kasaragod.671123
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
Gist of the complaint is that complainant is the owner of an excavator. He purchased a battery bearing serial No. 4J0105507 excide Express with model No.3DX m/c/No.1718020 installed on 19-11-2010. But while functioning the excavator it was found damaged due to battery defects. The battery was found defective on 31-05-2011. Complainant approached opposite party No.1 many times either to repair the battery or to repay the functioning battery. But opposite party completely neglected the request of the complainant. Due to the irresponsible attitude of opposite party complainant sustained heavy loss and mental agony. Complainant purchased the excavator by availing hypothecation loan from Sriram equipments finance company Ltd for an amount of `17,00,000/- and its monthly instalment is `75,000/-. Eventhough the excavator is not functioning also he has to pay monthly instalments and to pay salary to the driver.
2. According to opposite party No.1 complainant is not a consumer of opposite party No.1 as the excavator is purchased from opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.1 is only an authorized dealer of Excide batteries manufactured by Excide Industries Ltd. They are not servicing the batteries nor they are running any battery service centre. Opposite party No.1 tried to help the complainant by sending the batteries to the authorized service centre. The said battery was replaced with a new battery from the said service centre free of cost and it is supplied to opposite party No.1 on 22-07-2011. Immediately on receiving the same, opposite party No.1 informed opposite party No.2 that the battery is ready for delivery. After about one week opposite party No.1 again requested opposite partyNo.2 to take the delivery of the battery but so far no one has approached opposite party No.1. According to opposite party No.1 opposite party No.2 is the proper and necessary party to this case and this matter cannot be decided effectively and judiciously in their absence. The case is bad for non-joinder of necessary party namely India Tech Ltd. So the case is liable to be dismissed.
3. Though opposite party No.2 was impleaded, and notice has been served. Opposite party No.2 was not appeared before the Forum when the case called, was absent and set exparte.
4. Complainant filed chief affidavit in support of his case and produced documents which were marked as Exts A1 to A3. Opposite party No.1 produced warranty Foc bill which is marked as Ext.B1.
5. The actual facts of the case is that the complainant purchased a new M.M.V excavator while functioning. It was found that the battery of the excavator was found defective and sent to opposite party No.1 either for repair or repay a new battery. Opposite party No.2 sent the battery with a letter Ext.A2 letter to opposite party No.1. Being an authorized dealer opposite party No.1 helped the complainant to send the battery to an authorized service centre, Excide Industries Limited at Calicut. The said battery was replaced with a new battery from the said service centre free of cost and it is informed to opposite party No.2 on 22-07-2011 itself. But it seems that opposite party No.2 failed to inform the complainant in time that the battery is replaced. This negligent attitude of opposite party No.2 is a deficiency in service on his part without knowing the replacement of the battery complainant undergone mental agony due to the non-functioning of excavator. Complainant purchased the excavator by availing a long and he has to repay a monthly instalment of `75,000/-. Here the excavator was kept idle for more than 1 year due to the negligence on the part of opposite partyNo.2 to pass an information in time to the complainant. Complainant produced Ext.A1 receipt to prove hypothecation loan and monthly instalment is `75,000/- per month. This case cannot be decided efficiently and judiciously in the absence of opposite party No.2. But unfortunately they were not turned up. Considering the documents and oral evidences produced before the Forum by the complainant and opposite party No.1, opposite party No.2 is liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant since the complainant purchased M.M.V. excavator through opposite party No.2 they are bound to inform the renewal of the battery to the complainant in time. Opposite party No.1 is exonerated considering the documents produced by them before the Forum.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and opposite party No.1 is directed to handover the replaced battery to the complainant and opposite party No.2 is directed to give a compensation of ` 10,000/- to the complainant with a cost of `3,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. Receipt for an amount of `75,000/- dt.10-03-2011 Customer copy
A2.31-5-11 letter issued by India techs Ltd to OP No.1.
A3. Photocopy of RC
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
