BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, REWARI.
Consumer Complaint No: 221 of 2012.
Date of Institution: 08.5.2012.
Date of Decision: 27.3.2015.
Nagarmal son of shri Shiv Narain resident of 3031, Sarai Balbhadra Arya Samaj Road, Rewari, Tehsil and Distt. Rewari.
…….Complainant.
Versus
- Managing Director Microtek International Private Limited H-57, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041,
- Parmod Electronics Arya Samaj Mandir New Sabzi Mandi Road, Rewari, through proprietor Parmod kumar.
…...Opposite Parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act
Before: Shri Raj Kumar ………. …..………..PRESIDENT
Shri Kapil Dev Sharma…………………MEMBER
Present : Shri M.K.Parihar, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Shri Prem Kumar, representative for opposite
party no.2.
Shri Sanjay Chaturvedi, Advocate for the opposite
party no.3.
ORDER
Per Raj Kumar President
Factual matrix comprising the case of the complainant, shorn of details, is that the complainant had purchased a Microtek inverter 1000V and one Tubular Battery of Universal company from opposite party no.2 on 28.4.2010 for an amount of Rs.
14,000/- with two years guarantee but after some days the said
system ceased functioning. It is also alleged that on 3.9.2010, when the complainant opened the battery for checking its water, it emitted poisonous gas which damaged his eyes resulting into poor vision. On complaint, opposite party no.2 collected the inverter and battery on 15.9.2010 and handed over another inverter of Zoom company alongwith local battery that too only on 25.3.2011 but the said system also did not function properly. He requested the opposite parties several ties to replace the defective inverter and battery with a new one but no heed was paid towards his requests; hence this complaint.
2) Opposite party no.1 in its reply stated that it is the manufacturer of inverter/UPS-EB only and not of the battery. It is also alleged that the battery supplies charge to the inverter and then only the inverter converts it into current which is supplied to the line for use. Since the problem is alleged with the battery only, so the opposite party no.1 is not responsible for the same. The other contents have been denied with the prayer of dismissal of the complaint with costs.
Opposite party no.2 in its reply alleged that the complainant purchased one Microtek inverter and tubular battery of universal company on 28.4.2010 for an amount of Rs. 14,000/- but he paid only Rs. 9,000/- and the remaining amount has not yet been paid. It is also averred that the complainant again borrowed one inverter with battery for an amount of Rs. 12,000/- and its payment has also not been made by him as yet. It is also alleged that the opposite party no.2 is the dealer of opposite party no.1 and the
complainant never made any complaint to opposite party no.1 for any fault if any. All the other contents have been denied with the prayer of dismissal of complaint with costs.
3) We have heard both the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case available on the file thoroughly.
4) From the pleadings as well as evidence led by the parties, it is clear that the problem, if any, lied with the battery and not with the inverter. Ex. C-10 letter / notice written by the complainant to the opposite parties clearly shows that the fault lies with the battery. It is needless to say that the battery supplies charge to the inverter which in turn converts into electricity. The complainant has pleaded that soon after the purchase of the inverter and battery, the battery started giving trouble and it also emitted poisonous gas. It damaged eyes resulting in poor vision. The notice was served after a delay of about two years i.e. on 22.3.2012. It is common knowledge that the health of battery depends upon several factors like nature of supply, its duration and maintenance. Battery can get damage if high voltage of electricity is supplied or the voltage so supplied is too low or even if it not used it can automatically get discharged and ultimately if not charged, it may fail. There is no scientific evidence to support the averment that the faulty battery was supplied. Thus the possibility of damage to the battery for the aforesaid reasons cannot be ruled out. The averment of the complainant that his vision became poor on account of gas emitted by the battery is too fanciful and difficult to believe. There is not even an iota of evidence to substantiate this averment nor any deficiency is
attributed to the opposite parties. The complaint appears to be frivolous and abuse of process of the court and the same is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly.
Announced
25.3.2015.
President,
Distt. Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Rewari.
Member,
DCDRF,Rewari.
