DATE OF DISPOSAL: 18.02.2021.

Mr. Karunakar Nayak, Member:

               The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant has filed this consumer complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party (in short the O.P.) and for redressal of his grievance before this Forum.   

               2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that the complainant is one of the bonafied consumer purchased two numbers of batteries vide No.TAEO 117P194043 & TAEO117P193343  and an inverter of 1400 VA alongwith Equalizer from the O.P.No.1 on 02.07.2015 by paying Rs.34,500/- with the warranty period of four years. The battery backup time reduced drastically. So approached to the Authorised Service center O.P.No.2 on 08.08.2017 for necessary repair without any proper checkup the service. The Service center impressed upon the complaint that the battery has no defect and it will take some time to function properly. So the complainant requested to replace the batteries as per warranty provision. On 16.08.2017 the O.Ps returned the same defective batteries with an assurance to replace the same as soon as possible. Further advise to use the batteries until its replacement. Though the complainant approached the O.Ps time and again still the O.Ps neither replaced the batteries nor returned the old batteries and  violated the terms and conditions of the warranty.   As thus deficiency in service attributed against O.Ps. As thus the complainant prayed for compensation, cost with replacement a new batteries for which the O.Ps are liable to pay the compensation as well as to hand over the new batteries in place of old one which is with the O.P.No.2. Further for the deliberate harassment caused to the complainant by the O.Ps in making the complainant running to the O.P.No.2 several times and not providing the new batteries on replacement the complainant also sustained mental agony which O.Ps are liable to make good of the same too. he is one of the bonafide consumer purchased two numbers of batteries vide No.TAE0117P194043 & TAE0117P193343 and an Inverter of 1400 VA alongwith Equalizer for a value of Rs.34,500/- on 02.07.2015 from O.P.No.1 which were produced and supplied by the Company O.P.No.3 & 4. Accordingly the O.P.No.1 has also issued warranty card given by the O.P.No.3 & 4 in respect to the batteries to the complainant and gave impressed upon the O.Ps that the O.P.No.1 will avail guarantee of four years from date of sale against the batteries purchased by the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant after purchase installed the above batteries and in his house for better living for the purpose of study of his children. While the matter stood thus, when the battery backup time reduced drastically up to 20 to 30 minutes even after regular recharge of the batteries, the complainant lodged complain over the toll free phone number of the company and after getting instruction from them so also and on the advice of O.P.No.1 & 4, the complainant produced the batteries before the O.P.No.2 the authorized service point of the O.P.No.3 & 4 for checkup/service on 08.08.2017. Without making any proper checkup/service of the batteries O.P.No.2 impressed upon the complainant that though the batteries were not functioning properly, but will continue to function for some more periods. Though complainant requested the service centre to replace the batteries as per warranty provisions, the service centre O.P.No.2 returned the batteries to the complainant on 16.08.2017 with an assurance to replace the batteries as soon as possible and advised the complainant to continue to use of the batteries till its replacement. After receiving back the batteries, upon use when the backup time reduced drastically the complainant again complained to O.P.No.2 so also on the toll free number of the O.P.No.3 and 4 on 18.08.2017 and 19.08.2017 regarding the difficulties faced by the complainant in using the batteries.  After complain one service engineer of the O.P.No.3 & 4 namely Gouri Prasad Sahu attended the complain in the house of the complainant on 19.08.2017 but the complainant could known what the he had done and he took product repair charge of Rs.1,210/- from the complainant under  proper receipt so also after inspection of the batteries gave a certificate to the complainant after inspection of the batteries mentioning therein that the battery backup is only for 25 minutes and told the complainant to get the new batteries replaced by producing this before the O.P.No.2 as the complainant is entitled for the same as per warranty condition. As per advice of the service engineer Sri Gouri Prasad Sahu, the complainant produced both the batteries as mentioned above before O.P.No.2 on 21.08.2017 for their service and replacement, but the O.P.No.2 after receiving both the batteries along with the warranty card of the batteries, assured the complainant to replace the batteries after consultation with the company O.P.No.3 and 4 and asked the complainant to come after a month. Accordingly the complainant requested for an acknowledgement of receipt of batteries by the O.P.No.2 but the O.P.No.2 impressed upon the complainant that there is no necessity of the same and complainant will get replacement of the batteries same soon after receipt of the batteries from him(O.P.No.2). Having been induced by O.P.No.2 , the complainant returned and apprised the O.P.No.3&4 on 22.08.2017 over the toll free telephone number regarding  replacement of the batteries. The Complainant again approached the O.P.No.2,3 & 4 after one month and asked for replacement of the batteries, but the O.P.No.2 advised the complainant to wait for some more time as the new batteries have not yet reached for replacement.  The O.P.No.2 returned the complainant several times and neither provided the new batteries on replacement nor returned the old batteries in good operational condition after service. The complainant insisted O.P.No.2 to give acknowledgment receipt of the batteries at last on due request the O.P.No.2 reluctantly issued acknowledgement of receipt in favour of the complainant on 28.08.2018.Though the batteries purchased by the complainant were produced before the O.P.No.2 for replacement an advise of the service engineer well within the time prescribed the O.P.No.2 had deliberately neither returned the batteries after service in good operational condition nor replaced the same with new one yet and thereby flouted the terms and warranty period unilaterally thereby causing huge loss to the complainant and caused mental agony for which the O.Ps are jointly and severally lia When the O.Ps did not comply the return and condition so provided in the warranty card which was supplied to the complainant at the time of purchase of the Inverter battery, the complainant make call in toll free number to the company so also sent several message and after receipt of the complaint from the complainant gave assurance that the company will take necessary step to the complain of the complainant. After receiving of assurance from the company, the complainant waited for the good response but when no response from the side of the company has  been received, under the compelling circumstances the complainant issued legal notice to all the O.Ps through his advocate on 17.09.2018 and was duly received by the O.Ps in different dates. Out from the O.Ps the O.P.No.2,3 and 4 gave reply to the notice of the complainant making false allegations against the complainant and the plea so taken by the above O.Ps in their reply are imaginary, after thought and not tenable under the law hereby denied the same so also the pleas so taken in their reply notice are only to discharge their legal liability and those pleas are not binding to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to supply a new batteries in place of defective batteries and to pay Rs.50,000/- for damages, compensation and mental agony etc. and grant such other further reliefs as Hon’ble Forum deems fit just and proper in the best interest of justice.

               3. Notices were issued to the Opposite Parties. Only the O.P.No.2 appeared through his advocate but not filed any written version. The O.P.No.1,3 & 4 neither appeared nor filed any written version. Hence all the Opp. Parties were declared exparte on dated 07.02.2020.

               4. On the date of exparte hearing of the case, we heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the case record and the materials placed on it. We have also thoughtfully considered the submissions made before us by the learned counsel for the complainant. The complainant is one of the bonafide consumer purchased two numbers of batteries vide No.TAE0117P194043 & TAE0117P193343 and an Inverter of 1400 VA alongwith Equalizer for a value of Rs.34,500/- on 02.07.2015 from O.P.No.1 which were produced and supplied by the Company O.P.No.3 & 4. It reveals that O.P.No.1 has issued warranty card to the complainant wherein warranty of ‘4’ years is given. It also reveals from the complaint petition that due to low back up of the batteries the complainant lodged complaint to the complainant and also produced the batteries before O.P.No.2 for checkup/service on 08.08.2017 and returned back the batteries from the O.P.No.1 on 16.08.2017 without any repair as O.P.No.2 assured to replace the batteries. On 19.08.2017 the complainant has paid Rs.1210/- to the O.Ps towards repairing charges of the batteries. It also reveals that due to repeated defect of the batteries the complainant handed over the said batteries to the O.P.No.2 with proper receipt but the O.Ps neither repaired the complainant’s batteries nor replaced with new batteries as per terms and conditions for which the complainant issued pleader notice issued to the O.Ps for redressal of his grievance but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it.  It is pertinent to mention here that though opportunity was given to the O.Ps to defend the case but the O.Ps did not avail the opportunity.  Hence taking the sole testimony of the complainant as well as documents available on the record and the affidavit of the complainant into consideration we hold the O.Ps are negligent in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, in our considered view there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. In the instance case for the acts of the O.Ps undoubtedly the complainant has sustained mental agony for which he is to be compensated.

               7. In the result, the complainant’s case is partly allowed against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are jointly and severally liable as such they are directed to replace  two numbers of defective batteries with new batteries of same model with fresh warranty or in alternative  to refund the cost of the two numbers of batteries to the complainant. Further the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.3000/- for compensation and Rs.2000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant. Both the order shall be carried out by the O.Ps within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which all the dues shall carry 12% interest per annum.  The complainant is also directed to return the defective two numbers of batteries to the O.Ps. The case of the complainant is disposed of accordingly.

               The order is pronounced on this day of 18th February 2021 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and a copy of same be sent to the server of