Between:

P.Sunkanna, S/o P.Saravappa,

R/o Flat No.101, 1^st Floor, V.C. Homes, N.R. Peta, Kurnool – 518 004. 

                                …Complainant

                                                    -Vs-      

   1.  Mr.Subramanyam, Proprietor,

        D.No.40/321-1, Satya Summa Marketers,       Near Old Ayyappa Swamy Temple,    Kurnool – 518 002.

   2   Whirlpool of India Limited, Represented by its Managing Director,              

        Plot No.A-4, M.I.D.C., Ranjangaon, Taluka Shirur, Pune District– 419 204, Maharastra.

   3.  Exide Industries Limited, Represented by its Managing Director,

        Regd. Office:59E, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata – 700 020.                      

        ...Opposite ParTies

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for complainant and Sri.M.D.V.Jogaiah Sharma, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and K.V.Udaya Bhaskar, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 called absent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                             ORDER

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member)                                                             C.C. No.61/2012

1.     This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-

(a)          To direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to return the cost of the Inverter and the Battery amount of 11,500/- with interest at the rate of 24% from the date of death;

(b)          To grant a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship;

(c)           To grant the cost of this complaint;

And

(d)          To grant such other relief or reliref’s as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.     The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant purchased one Whirpool 700 VA Inverter and Battery – Excide (Inva Queen 300)  for Rs.11,500/- on 07-01-2010 from opposite party No.1.  At the time of purchase the opposite party No.1 promised that the Inverter will supply three hours power supply un-interrupt for 12 points i.e., 6 Lights and 6 Fans.  The warranty is two years.  But within one month of the purchase, the said battery and the inverter started giving troubles and did not function properly.  On 10-02-2010, the complainant lodged a complaint to opposite party No.1, the opposite party No.1 sent one mechanic and he attended the repairs.  Again after 8 months the same problems erupted on 18-12-1010, again it was repaired.  Thereafter on seven times the mechanic of the opposite party No.1 repaired the inverter and battery.  But the defects were not removed.  As the defects erupted within warranty period and continuing the same, the complainant requested opposite party No.1 to replace the defective inverter and battery with new inverter and battery, but opposite party No.1 did not respond.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 22-02-2012 to opposite party No.1 by demanding the cost of piece and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony.  The opposite party No.1 replied the same and advise to purchase new piece on discount.  Due to not functioning of the same the complainant suffered a lot of inconvenience and mental agony.  There is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.   

3.     Opposite party No.1 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.   It is admitted that the complainant purchase inverter and battery on 07-01-2010 for Rs.11,500/-.  It is submitted that the said inverter and batter would give battery backup for 1½ hours to 2 hours for 8 points, and the warranty for the inverter is 2 years and for battery is guarantee for 1½ year and warrantee for 6 months.  The opposite party no.1 mechanics attended to every complaint given by the complainant.  The complainant had already made the best use of the inverter and battery for their full warranty period.  There is no cause of action to file this complaint, there was no manufacturing defect in the said inverter and battery and opposite party No.1 provided service to the complainant during the warranty period.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

        Opposite party No.2 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable.  It is admitted that the complainant purchased Whirpool 700 VA inverter from opposite party No.1 on 07-01-2010.  Opposite party No.1 is the authorized dealer of opposite party No.2, opposite party No.2 manufactured the inverter and sold through opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.3 is the battery provider to the inverter.  The complainant never approached to opposite party No.2 with any written complaint regarding the defects in inverter and the warranty period has already lapsed.  The complainant is neither entitled for any warranty nor replacement as per the terms and conditions of the warranty.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed against opposite party No.2.

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant and third party affidavit of Sri.M.D.Javid is filed. Sworn affidavit of opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.  No document is marked.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     Now the points that arise for consideration are:

                     i.        Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?

                    ii.        Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

                  iii.        To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:- Admittedly the complainant purchased Whirpool 700 VA Inverter and Battery – Excide (Inva Queen 300) for Rs.11,500/-.  Ex.A1 is the Cash Bill No.152 dated 07-01-2010.  The opposite party No.1 issued warranty card along with use and care guide book in favour of the complainant, which is marked as Ex.A2.  it is the case of the complainant that within one month of the purchase the said battery and inverter started giving troubles and did not function properly, the complainant lodged a complaint on 10-02-2010 to opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 sent one mechanic he attended for the repairs and had issued job card dated 10-02-2010 it is marked as Ex.A5.  After 8 months again the same problems erupted on 18-12-2010 the mechanic of opposite party No.1 attended the repairs and had issue job card (Ex.A4).  Thereafter on seven various dates the mechanic of opposite party No.1 repaired the said inverter and battery and seven job cards are marked as Ex.A4 to Ex.A10.  But the defects are not removed permanently.  The complainant requested opposite party No.1 to replace the same but the opposite party No.1 did not respond.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 22-02-2012, which is marked as Ex.A11 by demanding the cost of piece and Rs.10,000/- for mental agony with interest 12% per annum. 

The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that the defects erupted within warranty period and continuing the same so the cause of action continued.  To support his version he cited decisions reported in II (2010) CPJ 284 (NC) and II (2013) CPJ 534 (NC) where in it was held that the complaint was made within warranty period it was the duty of dealer to attend to the same and repair the vehicle. 

8.     It is the case of the opposite party No.1 that the alleged defects complained by the complainant could be due to the reason of the normal wear and tear, due to the extensive and regular use of the product by the complainant for a long period. The said warranty was given by the manufacturing companies, that manufactured the inverter and the battery purchased by the complainant.  The opposite party No.1 had sent mechanic, that he attended the repairs and provide services within warranty period upon the complaint of complainant.  The complainant had already made the best use of the inverter and battery for the full warranty period with only small problems. The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 contended that the complainant had not produced any evidence or expert opinion in proof of the alleged manufacturing defect in the said products.  To support his version he cited decision reported in II (2013) CPJ 72 (NC) where in it was held that the complainant was not a Consumer because the said vehicle was used for commercial purpose and not produced any evidence that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  But in the present case on hand the complainant filed third party affidavit of Sri.M.D.Javid is doing business of inverters and batteries sales and services.  In his affidavit he stated that if any problem continues for three or more times in any inverter and batteries, then the dealer send it to the manufacturer to remove the defect, and the manufacturer remove the same immediately and sent back to the dealer.  The opposite parties did not choose to cross examine the said person. 

9.      It is the case of opposite party No.2 that the complainant did not made any written complaint to opposite party No.2 alleging any defects in inverter.  The complainant did not choose to file any document that he was already approached opposite party No.2 for necessary rectification of the said inverter.  The complainant is not entitled for any replacement of the product as the warranty period of 2 years is already lapsed.

        Admittedly the opposite parties issued warranty for 2 years under Ex.A2.  As seen from Ex.A4 to Ex.A10 (Job Cards) it is very clear that the said inverter and battery was not functioning properly within one month from the date of purchase on 07-01-2010 and it was repaired for seven times within warranty period.  Though the complainant did not made complaint to opposite party No.2 regarding the defect in inverter, he made complaints to opposite party No.1.  Opposite party No.1 is the authorized dealer of opposite parties 2 and 3.  It is the responsibility of opposite party No.1 to send the said defective inverter and battery to the manufacturing companies to remove the defects in it, but opposite party No.1 did not take any steps to send it to the concerned companies.  There is deficiency of service on his part.  As per Ex.A2 Warranty Card, the opposite parties carryout repairs and replacement of any part of the said inverter and battery within 2 years from the date of purchase.  The said inverter and battery started to give troubles within one month from the date of purchase and it was continued beyond the period of warranty so the opposite parties cannot escape from their liability even after the warranty period.  We persued all the material on record and the affidavit of Sri.M.D.Javid filed on behalf of complainant, we are of the view that the complainant is entitled for the replacement of inverter with new one and for the replacement of battery with a discount of 75% or to pay 70% of the price amount of inverter and battery to the complainant and further entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the case.

10.    In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to replace the inverter with new one and also replace the battery with a discount of 75% or to pay 70% of the price amount of inverter and battery to the complainant and further direct to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the case.   Time for compliance is one month from the date of this order.

        Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 27^th day of June, 2013.

Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                PRESIDENT (FAC)

               APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                    Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nill           For the opposite parties : Nill

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Purchased Bill No.152 dated 07-01-2010.

Ex.A2                Warranty Card.

Ex.A3                Use and Care Guide.

Ex.A4                Job Card dated 18-12-2010.

Ex.A5                Job Card dated 10-02-2010.

Ex.A6       Job Card dated 21-04-2011.

Ex.A7        Job Card dated 27-08-2011.

Ex.A8        Job Card dated 28-01-2011.

Ex.A9        Job Card dated 30-01-2012.

Ex.A10       Job Card dated 31-01-2012.

Ex.A11       Office copy of Legal Notice dated 22-02-2012

                along with postal receipt.

Ex.A12       Reply Notice dated 05-03-2012.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- NILL

Sd/-                                                                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT (FAC)          

    // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties  :

Copy was made ready on             :

Copy was dispatched on               :