..… Complainant
Versus
- M/s. Exide Industries Ltd., Regd. Off.: Exide House, 59E, Chowringhee Road, Kolkatta-700020, through its Managing Director.
- M/s. Exide Industries Ltd., C-61, Focal Point, Opp. U.B. Breweries, Near Neevan Nagar Chowk, Ludhiana, email:
- M/s. New Punjab Battery House, Sirhind Road, Morinda, District Ropar, through its Authorized Signatory.
…..Opposite parties
Complaint under the Provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
QUORUM:
SH. G.K. DHIR, PRESIDENT
MS. BABITA, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. R.K. Bhandari, Advocate.
For OP2 : Sh. R.K. Sooden, Advocate.
For OP1 and OP3 : Exparte.
ORDER
PER G.K. Dhir, PRESIDENT
1. Complaint under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein-after in short to be referred as ‘Act’) filed by complainant by claiming that complainant for his personal use purchased from OP3, one Exide DIN 80 (MF) battery bearing Serial No.5G2-324388 with manufacturing code 5G2, vide invoice no.331 dated 14.10.2013 for Rs.11,500/-. This battery was purchased from OP3 at Morinda because it was not available at Ludhiana. As per representation of OP3, purchased battery will prove to be an asset for the complainant. The said purchased battery carried warranty of one year for period from 14.10.2013 to 13.10.2014. However, this battery started giving trouble at the time of start of the car. Then complainant approached OP3 who in turn asked him (complainant) to contact OP2, being the service centre. When the complainant contacted OP2, then he flatly refused to change the defective battery carrying perennial manufacturing defect. Thereafter, complainant sent email to Ops on 12.10.2014 at about 03.31 PM for calling upon ops to replace the defective battery, but to no effect. By pleading negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Ops, complainant has sought refund of the price of defective battery i.e. Rs.11,500/- along with compensation for mental harassment of Rs.15,000/-. Litigation expenses also claimed.
2. In written statement filed by OP2, it was pleaded, interalia, as if complaint not maintainable in present form; complainant purchased battery directly from OP3 with whom OP2 has no nexus of contract. It is also claimed there is no manufacturing defect in the battery sold by OP3 to complainant. Warranty card issued by Exide Industries in favour of OP3 on the date of sale of disputed battery reflected the period of the warranty as 12 months from the date of sale of the battery or 15 months from the date of manufacture of battery, which every is earlier. Manufacturing code of the battery reflects year of manufacture of battery with code on the disputed battery bearing No.5G2, which means battery was manufactured in 2012. Proper receipt was affixed on the battery at the time of purchase of battery. That receipt is in possession of complainant party. As per terms and conditions of the warranty, OP2 is not liable for any defect, if any in the battery. OP2 and OP3 do not have relationship of principal or agent or like that and as such, Ops cannot be rendered liable in any way for the battery purchased by complainant from OP3. As the battery in question was purchased at Morinda and as such, Forum at Ludhiana has no territorial jurisdiction. Each and every other averment of complaint denied by praying for dismissal of complaint. Rather it is claimed that condition No.4 of the warranty applies only as and when battery is in warranty period.
3. OP1 and OP3 are exparte in this case.
4. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CA along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C5 through recorded statement of counsel of complainant and thereafter, counsel for complainant closed evidence.
5. On the other hand, counsel for OP2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Anil Thakur, Service Officer in Exide Industries Limited along with documents Ex. RW1/1 to Ex. RW1/3 and then he closed evidence.
6. Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties, but only oral arguments heard and record gone through carefully.
7. Contents of affidavit Ex. CA along with copy of invoice Ex. C2 establishes as if the battery in question purchased by complainant from OP3 on 14.10.2013 on payment of Rs.11,500/- as price. Ex. C3 is the warranty card of this purchased battery bearing Serial No.324388. Manufacturing code of this battery mentioned as 5G2 in Ex. C3. That manufacturing code reflects as if battery was manufactured in 2012 is the contention of counsel for OP2. That submission of counsel for OP2 has force because after going through the details of the battery, manufacturing code placed on record as Ex. RW1/3, it is made out that G connotes the manufacturing month as July, but the word 2 connotes the manufacturing year as 2012. So as per battery manufacturing coding Ex. RW1/3, battery was manufactured in July 2012.
8. Ex. RW1/2 and Ex. C4 is one and of the same thing. This Ex. RW1/2=Ex. C4 provides that the period of warranty will be 12 months from the date of sale of the battery or 15 months from the month of manufacture of battery whichever is earlier. So even if battery in question through Ex. C2 may have been purchased on 14.10.2013, but despite that the warranty period was to expire in October 2013 because battery was manufactured in July 2012 as discussed above. By computing the period of 15 months from the date of manufacture of the battery, it is made out that the warranty period was to expire at the end of October 2013. As period of 15 months from the date of manufacture of the battery expired prior to the period of 12 months from the date of purchase namely 14.10.2013 and as such, by keeping in view the terms and condition of warranty card Ex. C4= Ex. RW1/2, it is made out that virtually the warranty period expired at the end of October 2013 itself. Being so submission advanced by counsel for OP2 has force that complaint regarding defective battery was lodged after expiry of the warranty period. As the liability of OP1 to replace the defective battery or parts thereof was within warranty period, but warranty claim request put forth on 13.10.2014 or 12.10.2014 as disclosed by Ex. RW1/1 and Ex. C5. In Ex. C5 itself it has been mentioned by complainant that 2 days period was left for expiry of the warranty of the battery and as such, virtually defect in the battery pointed out on emergence thereof in October 2014. However the warranty period expired in October 2013 as discussed above and as such, rejection of claim of complainant through letter Ex. RW1/1 is quite proper. Being so, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. The battery in question was returned to complainant vide letter Ex. C1 itself and no material produced to show that contents of this letter Ex. C1 are false and as such, it has to be held that battery in question has been returned to complainant.
9. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
(Babita) (G.K. Dhir)
Member President
Announced in Open Forum.
Dated:20.05.2016.
Gobind Ram.
