This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that after purchasing one RICO SIMI 165 AH Tubular Battery SMI – 1509 A I, Sl. No.S M I 5 0 9 A – 0510176 from the OP No.1 on payment of Rs.11,000/- in cash for inverter installed in his residence with warranty period for 4 years for  replacement or manufacturing defect to the complainant by the OPs1 and 2, the battery was not working or functioning properly since 10-10-2013 due to manufacturing defect in spite of recharge by the OP1.

          On 16-04-2013 the OP received the battery for inspection and doing needful to cure the defect but unfortunately no action was taken by the OP2 till 08-11-2013 on which date the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant issued a notice through registered post with Acknowledgement due card to the OPs 1,2 and 3 for replacement of the said battery for manufacturing defect which was received by the OP3 who replied to the Ld. Advocate of the complainant alleging damage of battery or it cells was caused during use and as such refused to replace but after repairing cost is to be reimbursed by the complainant what amounts to deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the OPs.  So, complainant filed this complaint praying for relief and redressal and fact remains for non-functioning of the aforesaid battery since long the complainant and his family has sustained pain and suffering for want of no-working of inverter and actually the said battery was purchased for inverter with clause for defective battery cells the same shall be replaced or the entire amount along with interest shall be paid by the OPs so to that effect relief is prayed for by the complainant.

          On the other hand, OP2 by filing written statement denied all the allegations and submitted that it was received in the factory of OPs2 and 3 on 16-10-2013 for doing the needful along with discharge date of the said battery, relevant tax invoice, challan etc. but on checking they immediately noticed that the water level of the five numbers of cells out of six cells were in alarming level, one cell was completely dried and the battery was heavily bulged due to hard sulphation.  All these were caused for non-maintenance by the battery user and this problem was shown to Mr. Prabhat Bhowmik i.e. the complainant.  That matter was discussed by the OPs with the complainant that the routine or periodical maintenance of the battery is an essential job of the battery user and it has no relation with manufacturing or materials defect and that is the scientific fact about the battery maintenance otherwise the battery cannot be operated by the complainant.

          After understanding the root of the problem of battery complainant asked for expertise service of the subject battery conduct-load test and also instructed the OP2 to repair the battery and as per his advice OP2 had put the battery in for servicing as per inspection report dated 16-10-2013 and had done the needful by repairing the same.  After completion of the service job it appeared that the five cells out of total six cells of the battery were revived to their normal service life and the sixth cell which was dead as it was on dry condition, was replaced by a new one and advised Mr. Bhowmik to take back his battery by paying minimum charge for replacement of the cell i.e. Rs.1512/- with VAT, tax etc. apart from the said material cost but the servicing job had been done on free of cost basis, out of good gesture and to maintain customer relations.

          Unfortunately in spite of above fact Mr. Bhowmik has gone to the extent of alleging unfair trade practice and manufacturing defect, for some ulterior motive and that matter was reported to the Ld. Lawyer of the OP so the present complaint should be dismissed.

          On the other hand OP4 by filing written statement submitted that the service matter was taken care by the manufacturer of the product and it was provided to customer and if there is any claim it is to be settled by them and the battery was not functioning because of lack of maintenance which was not taken by the complainant for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with Reasons

On hearing the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the entire facts and particularly the complaint and written version it is found that the complainant has failed to prove by producing any document that after purchasing the battery time to time he took such step for maintaining the said battery because it is known to all that water level inside the batter should be always in such a level so that inside six cells shall be under submerged condition of the said water level and due to use of the said battery water level is decreased time to time, so, time to time water level should be increased by pouring water inside the cell and that is the mandatory provision of maintenance the battery but complainant has failed to prove that complainant time to time maintained that procedure as per their guideline as given in the warranty.

          It is also proved that after use of two years by the complainant the matter was detected and truth is that OPs’ authority reported to the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant by a letter dated 19-11-2013 that due to non-maintenance of the same water level it was dried and for which one cell became dried and dead and other cells were found dried.  Thereafter, they repaired the same and made it fit for use but complainant did not receive it but truth is that OP manufacturer asked the complainant to receive it on payment of certain amount but complainant did not receive it and for which this complaint is filed. 

Now, the question is whether there is any manufacturing defect?  In this regard we have gone through the details and found that there was no manufacturing defect but it is proved that complainant did not maintain it properly and no such maintenance card is produced by the complainant to show that time to time water is poured to maintain the water level inside the battery.  Fact remains the said battery is already repaired and its level is completely restored but complainant has not received it but that is the choice of the complainant.

          Now-a-days it has become a practice of the consumer to file such sort of complaint even after the fact that the disputed goods is repaired and life is restored for running but it is not being accepted by the consumer because in many cases consumers show much eagerness to receive back the entire amount after using for two or three years of warranty for 48 months and in the present case practically and particularly considering the document it is found that purchase was made on 02-04-2011 and it was handed over to OP2 on 16-10-2013 for repairing whereas the present complaint was filed on 13-01-2014 but in the meantime the said battery had already been repaired and set it right for running but complainant did not receive it since 08-11-2013 and on 18-11-2013 complainant’s lawyer sent a letter against which reply was sent on 21-11-2013 by the OP but even then complaint was filed.

          Further on scrutiny of the warranty card it is found that Rico Technology and Exports Pvt. Ltd. issued warranty card from which it is found that the decision whether the battery needs replacement or only repair or claiming is unjustified is with the expert opinion after inspection or testing.  But after receipt of the same from the complainant OPs manufacturing unit’s engineer and expert on inspection and investigation found that there was no manufacturing defect only the water level inside the battery had already been dried.  But fact remains OPs’ manufacturing unit company repaired the same and reported the complainant to receive the same but complainant did not receive it in view of the fact OP demanded a sum of Rs.1,512/- for change of a damaged cell and practically that is the cause for filing this case alleging that it is defective.  But on overall assessment of the entire materials we are convinced to hold that OP manufacturer company has done a lot and truth is that complainant failed to maintain the battery properly and water level inside the battery was dried up and that was no doubt the fault of the complainant.

          Before this Forum Ld. Lawyer of the OP submitted that the battery has already been repaired and it is the duty of the complainant to receive it for use and in the above situation we are directing the complainant to receive it and to use it but also directing the OP not to charge any amount against replacement of sixth  cell and in respect of repairing this cell OP shall not have to get any amount and accordingly we are disposing the dispute by directing the OP to handover the said battery in right condition and functioning condition to the complainant and complainant shall have to receive it and OPs shall install the same in the house of the complainant at the cost of the OPs.

In the result, the case succeeds.

Hence,

Ordered

That the case be and the same is allowed without any cost against the OPs with such direction to the OP to install the said battery to the complainant’s house at OPs’ cost and complainant to handover the receipt in support of receiving the said article from the OPs.

          OPs shall have to do that within one month from the date of this order and if for any reason complainant refuses to accept it, in future complainant shall have no right to file any complaint against these OPs.

          Thus, complaint is disposed of finally.