MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

1.    This is an appeal filed by the complainant against order dated 3.2.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 909 of 2009.

2.       Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased an inverter bearing description – UPS 800VA INTEX BB 0724000649, one UPS 800 VA APC from OPs No.1 and 2 (M/s Iqbal Batteries) on 16.1.2008 for Rs.8,800/- for donating it to Gurudwara
Shri Guru Dukh Niwaran Sahib, Village Dyalpura, Tehsil Samrala, District Ludhiana. On the very same date i.e. 16.1.2008 complainant purchased a battery I/P 1800 make OXIDE for Rs.8,500/- for the same aforesaid purpose. The OPs had given warranty of two years in respect of inverter and 1 ½ year warranty of battery. The inverter became defective in the month of December, 2008 within a warranty period and the same was returned to OP No.2 by the complainant and in January, 2009 OP No.2 replaced the said inverter of the complainant.  On 9.4.2009 inverter and battery carried description I/P 1800 make OXIDE which became also defective and out of order. The complainant returned both inverter and battery to OP No.2 for replacement as both were within warranty period. The complainant went to the shop of OP No.2 number of times and requested to replace the above said inverter and battery as both are within warranty period but OP No.2 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused to replace it.   The above said act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and hence, the complaint was filed.

3.       Reply was filed by OPs No.1 and 2 and admitted the sale of the inverter, battery and its warranty. It was also admitted that when the inverter and battery were not working properly, the same were brought to them. After completing the recharge process of the battery, the battery was found to be defective and the same was forwarded to the manufacturer of the battery i.e. M/s Exide Industries Limited at Chandigarh. The manufacturer of the battery found that the battery was found to be different than the battery which was sold to the complainant and even the model of the battery was different and hence, the manufacturer i.e. M/s Exide Industries Limited rejected the claim of the complainant. It was pleaded that the inverters supplied to the complainant were not having any problem and the complainant failed to produce the necessary documents with regard to the battery in question. All other allegations made by the complainant in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.    OP No.3 did not appear, despite service and hence, it was proceeded against exparte.

5.       Reply filed by OP No.4 and stated that the battery IN1800 plus purchased by the complainant vide bill No. 4690 dated 16.1.2008 from OPs No.1 and 2 carried the warranty of 18 months from the date of its sale. It was submitted that answering OP i.e. OP No.4 received a battery claim on 11.6.2009 vide their CRN from OP No.1 against bill No.4690 dated 16.1.2008 and the battery type was IN1800 plus. It was further stated by OP No.4 that the battery which was actually sent was IN1650 plus along with warranty card in which the date of sale was mentioned as 12.5.2007 but the invoice attached with it was of battery type IN1800 plus in which the date of sale was mentioned as 16.1.2008 vide bill No. 4690 to Gurudwara Sahib, which was mismatched and differed in respect of battery which was received in service sation for claim and that is why it was rejected as the battery was under warranty only upto 11.11.2008. Hence, it is submitted that there was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.     

6.    The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

7.    The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint as there was no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

8.       Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal filed by the complainant in which it has been stated that OPs No.1 and 2 admitted in their reply this fact that battery and inverter purchased by appellant was within warranty and also admitted that after completing the recharging process, the batter was found to be defective. The appellant purchased battery from OPs No.1 and 2 and when it carried defect in function, the same was handed over to OPs No.1 and 2 for replacement because it was under warranty period. OPs No.1 and 2 retained the battery for two months and thereafter sent to OP No.4 for claim of replacement. The OP No.4 pointed out that it does not match with description of bill No. 4690 dated 16.1.2008 and as per bill and warranty card, battery carries warranty of period of two years. OPs No.1 and 2 given battery to OP No.4 for claim. It is submitted by the appellant that OPs No.1 and 2 actually sent battery IN 1650 along with warranty card in which sale was mentioned on 12.5.2007 but invoice attached with battery type IN 1800 plus in which date was 16.1.2008 vide bill No. 4690. It is totally wrong and incorrect that an old battery lying with Gurudwara Sahib and that is why new battery was not purchased. It is eventually clears that OPs No.1 and 2 sent another battery to OP No.4 for replacement which never purchased by the appellant. The Forum had also directed to OPs No.1 and 2 to produce the original bill of dated 12.5.2007 of description IN 1650 plus along with warranty card of IN 1650 plus but OPs No.1 and 2 did not produce the same intentionally and deliberately. It is further submitted by the appellant that the information has sought from the manufacturer i.e. Exide Industries Limited in which company has informed that it is necessary on the part of authorized dealer to write serial number, manufacturing code and date of the battery on bill invoice and warranty card. Hence it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and OPs No.1,2 and 4 may kindly be directed to produce the bill dated 12.5.2007 of description IN 1650 plus along with warranty card of IN 1650 for proper adjudication of the case.

9.    We have heard Sh.Nachhatter Singh, Advocate for the appellant and perused the record.

10.  The main point for consideration before us is that whether learned District Forum adjudicated the matter after the perusal of entire documents, which were necessary for adjudication.

11.  After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of the record, we have observed that it is an admitted fact that on 9.4.2009 the appellant/complainant approached the OPs No.1 and 2 along with battery as well as inverter for checking as it went out of order. The battery was in deep discharge condition and after recharging the said battery for 3-4 days was found to be defective. This was conveyed to the appellant/complainant and the battery was forwarded to the manufacturer i.e. OP No.4 along with warranty card marked as annexure C-4 where the OP No.4 after examining the battery found that the battery which the OP No.4 received on 11.6.2009 is different from the battery which was sold to the appellant/complainant. A perusal of annexure R-2 shows that the battery which was sold to the appellant/complainant was of I/P 1800 EXIDE make. However annexure R-4 shows that the battery sent to the OP No.4 was 1N 1650 plus.

12.  With these observations, we have come to the conclusion that there is a sufficient evidence on file to prove that the battery which went out of order and given to the OPs No.1 and 2 for replacement was different from the battery which was sold to the appellant/complainant. A photocopy of warranty card which was bearing date of purchase as 12.5.2007 as per annexure R-3 whereas the appellant/complainant was insisting that the battery in question was purchased as per Annexure R-2. Even the model of battery was different in annexure R-2 & R-3. For this reason M/s Exide Industries rejected the claim on 11.6.2009 as per annexure R-4. Moreover as per the dealer claim report, the defective battery which was sent for checking and replacement had a manufacturing code of 3B7, which means that it was manufactured in February, 2009. The contention of OP that the battery which went out of order had been sold on 12.5. 2007 has been proved from annexure R/E-1.

13.  The second contention the appellant is also rejected on the ground that as per direction issued by the learned District Forum. The OP No.1 has already produced the documents i.e. bill book, original warranty card and on the same time OP No.4 has also produced the dealer claim form, battery check observation sheet, claim receipt note and delivery challan which was recorded in the zimini order passed by the learned District Forum on 15.1.2010.

14.  In our view with these observations, the learned District Forum is justified while dismissing the complaint and holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limini.

15.       Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

Pronounced.

29^th April, 2010.