BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the day of 30th day of September 2011
Filed on : 13-10-2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 539/2010
Between
O. Padmanabhan, : Complainant
S/o. late R.P. Govindan Nair, (By Adv. Saji P Joseph
Residing at Nakshathra, Cheruparambath road,
Bose Nagar, Kadavanthra P.O., Kadavanthra, Cochin-20)
Cochin-682 020. Elamkulam Village,
Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam.
And
1. M/s.Exide Industies Ltd., : Opposite parties
Industrial Division, (By Adv. Joseph Mathew,
Devi Building, N-47 Bye pass, M/s. Peter & Karunakar,
Chakkarapparambu, Alfa Towers, LS Press road,
Thammanam P.O., Kochi-18.)
Cochin-682 032,
Poonithura Village,
Kanayannur Taluk,
Ernakulam District,
rep. by its Branch Manager.
2. M/s. Battery House,
GSBY Samajam Building,
Near Lions Club Hall,
Pulinchode, Aluva, Aluva P.O.,
Ernakulam District.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
Case of the complainant is as follows:
On 19-08-2009 the complainant purchased a tubular battery from the 2nd opposite party with 3 years warranty at a price of Rs. 7,038/- which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party. The complainant installed the battery with an inverter at his house. About six months the battery was given sufficient back-up power. Thereafter the battery was not given sufficient back-up power. It was due to the manufacturing defect of the product. Several times the complainant approached the opposite party to correct the battery by repairing or by replacing the same. Once the 2nd opposite party had taken the battery away from the complainant’s premises but after 2 weeks they returned the same without curing the defect. Thus the complainant is seeking direction against the opposite parties either to cure the defects of the battery or to return the price of the same together with costs of the proceedings.
2. Version of the opposite parties
The complainant is conducting a shop and is doing business of selling of batteries and inverters. The complainant purchased the battery for the purpose of sale and as a part of his business, he sold the battery to another person and the complainant is never used the battery for his purpose. So the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged Under Section 2 (1) d of the Consumer Protection Act. An amount of Rs. 7,182/- is due to the 2nd opposite party towards previous transaction between them the battery is free from any manufacturing defect. The complainant never produced the battery along with its warranty card. The battery will be replaced or repaired as per the warranty conditions, only if the battery is produced along with the warranty card which was not done. So the complainant is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for.
3. Complainant was examined as PW1, and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1, Exts. B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration.
i. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to get rectified the defects of the battery or to get refund of its price?
iii. Costs of the proceedings.
5. Point No. i. At the outset the opposite parties filed I.A. No. 736/2010 challenging the maintainability of the complaint. This Forum vide order dated 14-12-2010 found that the complainant is a consumer as per the provisions of the CP Act. The said order has not been challenged by the opposite parties. Further discussion in the point is not at all warranted hence.
6. Points ii & iii. Ext. A1 retail invoice dated 19-08-2009 goes to show that the complainant purchased the battery in question at a price of Rs. 7,038/-. Neither party produced the warranty card of the battery for our perusal. According to the complainant the opposite parties provided a 3 year warranty, the opposite parties did not disclose the exact period of warranty of the battery. Since the opposite parties failed to controvert the claim of the complainant that opposite party is liable to provide 3 year warranty. Admittedly on 05-06-2010 the 1st opposite party received Ext. A2 notice issued by the complainant within the warranty period to which he did not respond for reasons of his own. Even thereafter the opposite parties failed to take any steps to redress the grievances of the complainant. Especially since the demand of the complainant is very limited only that is to rectify the defect of the battery which calls for explanation.
7. The opposite parties took a contention that as per Ext. B1 statement of accounts they are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 7,182/- from the complainant pertaining to previous transmition. Admittedly the above transaction has no connection with the present issue. We make it clear that the opposite parties are at liberty to take steps to realize the above amount from the complainant with due process of law if advised so.
8 In the result, we allow the complaint and direct as follows:
i. the opposite parties shall jointly and severally rectify the defects of the battery of the complainant or replace the same if not repairable.
ii. An exemplary costs of Rs. 1,000/- is called for and awarded.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of September 2011
Sd/- A Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits:
A1 : Retail invoice
A2 : Letter dt. 03-06-2009
A3 : Postal receipt
A4 : A.D. card
A5 : A.D. card
Opposite party’s exhibits:
B1 : Statement from 01-04-2010 to 31-03-2011
Depositions:
PW1 : O. Padmanabhan
DW1 : Anwar Khan P.M.
