Haryana

Panchkula

268RB/2014

HARJINDER SINGH BHATIA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S HARIOM ELECTRONIC&H/W STORE. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

08 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                            

Consumer Complaint No	:	268 of 2014
Date of Institution	:	07.11.2014
Date of Decision	:	08.09.2015

                                                                                          

Harjinder Singh Bhatia (H.S.Bhatia) s/o Late Sh.J.S.Bhatia, R/o H.No.848, Sector-21, 1^st Floor, Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

 

1.       M/s Hariom Electronics & H/W Store, SCO 37, Shop No.8, GF, Sector-11, Panchkula.

2.       M/s Narang Motors, 920, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh-160002 through its prop.

3.       Exide Industries Ltd. C-188, Mayapuri, Indl. Area, Phase-II, New Delhi through its authorized signatory.

                                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                 Mr.Dharam Pal, President.

Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Complainant in person. 

Mr.Pawan Bansal, Prop. OP No.1 in person.

Ops No.2 and 3 already ex-parte.

ORDER

(Anita Kapoor, Member)

1. Initially, the complaint of the complainant was dismissed in default vide order dated 07.04.2015 due to non-appearance of the complainant. The complainant filed an appeal No.418 of 2015 before the Hon’ble State Commission vide which the Hon’ble State Commission allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order and the case was remitted to this Forum to decide afresh in accordance with law.
2. The complainant-Harjinder Singh Bhatia has filed this complaint against the opposite parties (in short the Ops) with the averments that he purchased 4 batteries of Exide EP/7-12 bearing Nos.2QE (E5056, E7104, E7109, R5122) for personal/official use for an amount of Rs.8000/- by giving old batteries @ Rs.1600/- thereby net amount payable was Rs.6400/- (Annexure C-1) with full guarantee of 6 months. The Op No.1 was not the dealer of Exide Batteries. The Op No.1 sold the batteries to the complainant by buying batteries from the Op No.2 for Rs.6976 vide bill No.14042 (Annexure C-2) dated 17.08.2012. But after one month of its purchase, the batteries did not fully charged and early exhaustion. The complainant approached the Op No.1 for making replacement for faulty batteries but the Op No.1 told the complainant to go to Op No.2 as the batteries were purchased from the Op No.2 and the Op No.1 is the retailer. All the necessary replacement would be made by the Op No.2. The complainant approached the Op No.2 for making necessary replacement and gave him the batteries. The Op No.2 kept the batteries for testing and thereafter, the Op No.2 handed over the batteries to the complainant by stating that as per their testing, batteries were OK. The Op No.2 also stated the complainant that for back up complaint, he might call the representatives of Exide Company for getting the same tested at the customer site. Thereafter, the complainant called on Toll free number of Op No.3 and registered a complaint vide No.MCUPP000000640 on 20.12.2013 on call center No.18-1-356454 but to no avail. The complainant again registered a complaint No.MCUP00000647 and Mr.Rahul Sandhu was deputed to attend the complaint. But Mr.Rahul Sandhu directed Sh.Ashwani to attend the complaint who told the complainant to install the batteries on UPS for checking. The complainant installed the batteries to the UPS at the site of OP No.1 but Sh.Ashwani did not turn up for more than two weeks. After lot of consecutive calls, Sh.Ashwani turned up at the premises of Op No.1 for checking the batteries against online complaint No.MCUP000000647 made in the month of December, 2013. Thereafter, in order to check the backup problem, the batteries were tested on Luminous cum UPS Invertor-1500VA and the charging voltage was 27.20UPS and charging current was 11.00AMP. During the checking, two batteries AQE E07109 and 4QEE07104 found to be having low volage i.e. defective and Sh.Ashwani Kumar assured the complainant that the necessary replacement would be done within a month. On 22.01.2014 it was informed that DC load 8.6 AMP and charging current II AMP, the frequency of power failure as 2 Hrs and backup given by 2 batteries was 10 minutes at 8.6 AMP i.e. 2 batteries were low (Annexure C-4). But Sh.Rahul, service engineer vide his mail dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure C-5) rejected the claim on the ground that VRLA battery were used with invertor which was not recommended and as per the warranty condition, the warranty for invertor or home UPS was not valid. At the time of purchasing the product, the Op No.1 and 2 were clearly told about the usage of product and Op No.3 was taking totally uncalled for dictatorship theory of rejecting the claim. The complainant also reported the above matter to Op No.3 through notice on 07.03.2014 that batteries were not taking proper back up, keeping low voltage and exhausted soon as the UPS failed to work. The complainant was forced to outsource the work on whooping cost and the amount of Rs.10,000/- incur and no replacement was done. The complainant requested the Op No.3 through telephone, emails and the oral requests time & again but to no avail. This act and conduct of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Hence, this complaint.
3. The Op No.1 appeared before this Forum and filed written statement admitting all the facts mentioned in the complaint.
4. Notice was issued to the Op No.2 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.2, it is deemed to be served. The Op No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.07.2015.
5. Notice was issued to the Op No.3 through registered post. But none has appeared on behalf of the Op No.3, it is deemed to be served. The Op No.3 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 14.07.2015.
6. The complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavits Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, OP No.1 has made a separate statement in which he stated that his written statement is already on record and his written statement might be read as his evidence and closed the evidence.
7. We have heard the complainant & Op No.1 who has appeared in person and have also perused the record.
8. The Op No.1, who had filed his reply admitting all the facts mentioned in the complaint, reiterated the correctness of the contentions raised by the complainant. The complainant had purchased 4 batteries of Exide EP/7-12 bearing Nos.2QE (E5056, E7104, E7109, R5122) for an amount of Rs.8000/- by giving old batteries @ Rs.1600/-, thereby net amount payable was Rs.6400/- (Annexure C-1), with full guarantee of 6 months from the Op No.1 which had sold the batteries by buying batteries from the Op No.2 for Rs.6976/- vide bill No.14042 (Annexure C-2) dated 17.08.2012. After one month of its purchase, the batteries did not fully charged and early exhaustion. The complainant approached the Op No.1 for replacement of the faulty batteries but the latter advised him to go to Op No.2 as Op No.1 is the retailer. The complainant approached the Op No.2 for making necessary replacement by giving him the batteries who tested the batteries and thereafter, handed over the batteries to the complainant by saying that the batteries are OK. The Op No.2 also told the complainant that for back up complaint, he might call the representatives of Exide Company for getting the same tested at the customer site. Thereafter, the complainant registered a complaint vide No.MCUPP000000640 on 20.12.2013 on call center No.18-1-356454 i.e. OP No.3 but to no avail. The complainant again registered a complaint No.MCUP00000647 and Mr.Rahul Sandhu was deputed to attend the complaint. But Mr.Rahul Sandhu directed Sh.Ashwani to attend the complaint who told the complainant to install the batteries on UPS for checking and the complainant did the same but Sh.Ashwani did not turn up for more than two weeks. After lot of consecutive calls, Sh.Ashwani turned up at the premises of Op No.1 for checking the batteries against complaint No.MCUP000000647. Thereafter, the batteries were tested on Luminous cum UPS Invertor-1500VA and charging current was found to be having low voltage i.e. defective. Sh.Ashwani Kumar assured the complainant that the necessary replacement would be done within a month. On 22.01.2014, the complainant sent an email to Rahul Sandhu with information DC load 8.6 AMP and charging current II AMP, the frequency of power failure as 2 Hrs and backup given by 2 batteries was 10 minutes at 8.6 AMP i.e. 2 batteries were low (Annexure C-4). But Sh.Rahul, service engineer rejected the complaint vide mail dated 22.01.2014 (Annexure C-5) on the ground that VRLA battery were used with invertor which was not recommended and as per the warranty condition, the warranty for invertor or home UPS was not valid. The complainant has filed his duly sworn affidavit (Annexure C-A).
9. The refrain on the part of Ops No.2 and 3 cannot be inferred to be innocuous, particularly when there are precise averments qua them touching the plea made by the complainant regarding deficiency of service on their part. An effectual adjudication can come about only when the rival parties present their pleadings and also canvass their respective pleas. In that view of things, there is all the justification for this Forum to assume that the Ops No.2 and 3 abstained from contesting the complaint for reasons indefensible in character. However, the Op No.1 charged Rs.8,000/- (Rs.6400 for new batteries and Rs.1600/- adjusted for the old batteries) (Annexure C-1) from the complainant whereas as per Annexure C-2, the Op No.1 purchased 4 batteries from the Op No.2 for Rs.6976/- (Annexure C-2). Since the batteries are not working properly. OP No.1 is liable to refund Rs.8,000/- to the complainant. The Ops No.2 and 3 are liable to refund Rs.6976/- to the Op No.1.
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint deserves to be allowed and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed as under:-

1. The OP No.1 refund Rs.8,000/- to the complainant and complainant on receipt of the abovesaid amount return the 4 batteries to the Op No.1.
2. The Ops No.2 & 3 refund Rs.6976/- to the OP No.1 and Op No.1 return the 4 batteries to the Ops No.2 & 3 on receipt of the abovesaid amount.

(ii)     To pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- each (Ops No.1 to 3) as compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of litigation.

Let the order be complied with within the period of 30 days from the receipt of certified copy of this order.  A copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced

08.09.2015      S.P.ATTRI         ANITA KAPOOR          DHARAM PAL

                        MEMBER          MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                          

                                                         ANITA KAPOOR

                                                          MEMBER