Complaint No: 121 of 2023.
Date of Institution: 11.07.2023.
Date of order: 03.11.2023.
Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Puran Chand, resident of Waheguru Nagar, Trimmo Road, Gurdaspur. Pin Code – 143521. (Aadhaar Card No. 9674 7884 8478)
…......Complainant.
VERSUS
1. M/s Laxmi Automobiles (2021-22) at G.T. Road, Opp. Dena Bank, Gurdaspur, through its Authorization Person.
2. Area Manager Narinder Singh of Exide Company c/o M/s Laxmi Automobiles (2021-22) at G.T. Road, Opp. Dena Bank, Gurdaspur.
3. All India Service Head, Exide Industries Limited Address: - 6A Hatibagan Road, Kolkata - 700014 West Bengal
….Opposite/ Parte No.1 & 3/Respondent.
Complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: For the complainant: Complainant in person.
For the opposite party No.1: Sh.Kabir Behl, Advocate.
For the opposite parties No.2 & 3: Sh.K.K.Attri, Advocate.
Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.
ORDER
Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.
Raj Kumar, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against M/s Laxmi Automobiles Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).
2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 18.10.2021 the complainant visit the Shop of M/s. Laxmi Automobiles at G.T. Road, Opposite Dena Gurdaspur and purchased Exide INVA KING Battery IK5000 and after which the invoice No. EX869 dated 18.10.2021 for amount of Rs.12,000/- was issued which included all taxes by M/s. Laxmi Automobiles i.e. opposite party No.1 and assured to the complainant that this Exide Battery running very long and guarantee/ warranty of this battery 42 months and out of this 21 months free replacement and 21 months pro-rata. It is alleged that after 20 months of using of said Exide Battery from date of purchasing, the battery backup was found to be very low and trip the power supply of battery, regarding this complainant reached the opposite party No.1 and requested that the Exide battery has problem then opposite party flatly refused to accept the request of the complainant and opposite party No.1 told the complainant that he could not provide any facility and you should contact the with Area Manager Customer i.e. opposite party No.2. It is further submitted that at the time of purchase of the said Exide battery opposite party No.1 assure to the complainant that if any problem is found regarding battery then opposite party No.1 shall resolve the problem and replace the same immediately. It is further submitted that there after complainant approached the customer care number 1800 103 5454 and registered complaint for resolution of the problem in the Exide battery problem vide complaint No.11129416 on dated 01.07.2023, after again approached toll free number and registered complaint No.11200426 and against complaint at toll free number and registered complaint No.11234346 and after that as per direction of toll free customer provider again approached the opposite party No.1. It is further alleged that even after having been approached the opposite party never helped the complainant and started abusive language, mislead, harassed and threatened the complainant if again dare to reach the shop of the opposite party No.1 and after that opposite party No.2 also failed to resolve the problem of the complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant visited the shop of the opposite party No.1 numbers of time, but no response was received, nor help provided and replacement was not done in respect of the said Exide battery, again opposite parties No.1 & 2 went on lingering the matter and did not give any heed to the request of the complainant and get the service of the opposite parties No.1 & 2, thus the complainant is consumer of the opposite parties. It is further pleaded that due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is further pleaded that there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to pay the amount of Rs.12,000/- alongwith with interest. The opposite parties may also be directed to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for harassment & mental agony suffered by the complainant at the hands of the opposite parties and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant, in the interest of justice.
3. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and the complaint of the complainant is baseless, devoid of any merits and without any cause of action against the answering OP. It is further pleaded that in fact the battery of the complainant has been duly checked three times by the Authorized Technician of the answering OP namely Jaswinder Singh at residence of the complainant in his presence and no defect was found as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. It is further pleaded that present complaint is thus not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs in favour of the answering OP and against the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and concealed correct facts and as such the complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the complainant has got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering OP and the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint just to harass the answering OP. It is pleaded that as per terms and conditions No.11 of warranty card says “In the event of any battery model being phased out, the company reserves the right to provide another model of the same capacity as settlement of the warranty". It is further pleaded that the battery in question was checked three times by the Authorized Technician namely Jaswinder Singh in the presence of the complainant and it was found that battery in question is working properly and no fault was found and battery was giving full back-up, but the complainant remained adamant on his illegal demand of changing the battery in question. It is further pleaded that in good gesture the answering OP offered the complainant to replace his battery with new battery type IMST1500, but surprisingly the complainant kept on demanding the same model i.e. IK5000 in place of new battery type IMST1500 which is higher in AH and more valuable product than IK5000. It is further pleaded that the answering OP also informed the complainant that battery type IK5000 i.e. battery in question has been discontinued and it is not possible to replace the battery in dispute with same model, but the complainant refused to accept this offer. It is further pleaded that the act and conduct of the complainant clearly shows that he just want to harass the OP and want to take undue advantage by demanding same battery, which is otherwise working properly, and demanding his money back with interest after using the battery for 20 months and with malafide intentions just lodged false complaint regarding the battery in dispute.
On merits, the opposite party No.1 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. Upon notice, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form and the complaint of the complainant is baseless, devoid of any merits and without any cause of action against the answering OP’s. It is further pleaded that in fact the battery of the complainant has been duly checked three times by the Authorized Technician of the answering OP’s namely Jaswinder Singh at residence of the complainant in his presence and no defect was found as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. It is further pleaded that present complaint is thus not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed with compensatory costs in favour of the answering OP’s and against the complainant. It is further pleaded that the complainant has not approached this Hon'ble Commission with clean hands and concealed correct facts. It is further pleaded that therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed and the complainant got no cause of action to file the present complaint against the answering OP’s and the complainant has filed the present false and frivolous complaint just to harass the answering OP’s. It is pleaded that as per terms and conditions No.11 of warranty card says “In the event of any battery model being phased out, the company reserves the right to provide another model of the same capacity as settlement of the warranty". It is further pleaded that the battery in question was checked three times by the Authorized Technician namely Jaswinder Singh in the presence of the complainant and it was found that battery in question is working properly and no fault was found and battery was giving full back-up, but the complainant remained adamant on his illegal demand of changing the battery in question. It is pertinent to mention here that in good gesture the answering OP’s offered the complainant to replace his battery with new battery type IMST1500, but surprisingly the complainant kept on demanding the same model i.e. IK5000 in place of new battery type IMST1500 which is higher in AH and more valuable product than IK5000. It is further pleaded that the answering OP’s also informed the complainant that battery type IK5000 i.e. battery in question has been discontinued and it is not possible to replace the battery in dispute with same model, but the complainant refused to accept this offer. It is further pleaded that the act and conduct of the complainant clearly shows that he just want to harass the OP’s and want to take undue advantage by demanding same battery, which is otherwise working properly, and demanding his money back with interest after using the battery for 20 months and with malafide intentions just lodged false complaint regarding the battery in dispute.
On merits, the opposite parties No.2 and 3 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kumar, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4.
6. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has filed affidavit of Avinash Mahajan Ex.OPW-1/A.
7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties No.2 and 3 has filed affidavit of Sh. Narinder Singh, Area Manager-cum-Technician Ex.OP-2,3/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2,3/1 to Ex.OP-2,3/5.
8. Written arguments not filed by both the parties.
9. Complainant in person has argued that complainant had purchased a battery from opposite party No.1 manufactured by the company i.e. opposite parties No.2 and 3 vide bill Ex.C1. It is further argued by the complainant that the warranty was of 42 months and out of this 21 months free replacement and 21 months pro-rata. It is further argued that after 20 months of the purchase the battery backup was found to be very low and complainant approached opposite party No.1 who further directed the complainant to approach opposite party No.2. Complainant time and again approached the opposite parties but opposite parties had not given any positive reply and did not replace the defective battery and as such complainant is entitled to receive refund of amount and compensation.
10. Counsels for the opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 have argued that as per terms and conditions No.11 of warranty card “In the event of any battery model being phased out, the company reserves the right to provide another model of the same capacity as settlement of the warranty". It is further argued that opposite parties had offered to replace the battery with new battery type IMST1500 but the complainant is adamant by demanding model IK5000 and the complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed.
11. We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.
12. To prove his case complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of tax invoice Ex.C1, copy of Aadhaar Card Ex.C2, copy of messages Ex.C3 and Ex.C4. Perusal of messages shows that battery was purchased on 18.10.2021 and first message regarding complaint received from the opposite parties on 1st July. Perusal of file shows that complaint was lodged within warranty period. However, opposite parties accepted complaint and offered to replace the battery with some other model. However, we are of the view that it is the prerogative of the complainant to have replacement of the same model and company cannot compel the complainant to accept the different model and since it is admitted by the opposite parties that model IK5000 has been phased out and is no more being manufactured. As such to resolve the present dispute the complainant is definitely entitled to receive back the sale consideration of amount of Rs.12,000/-.
13. Accordingly, present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 are directed to pay Rs.12,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization. Complainant is directed to return the old battery to the opposite parties after receiving the payment. Opposite parties No.1,2 and 3 are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- for mental tension, harassment and cost of litigation. Entire exercise shall be completed within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
14. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. File be consigned.
(Lalit Mohan Dogra)
President.
Announced: (B.S.Matharu)
Nov. 03, 2023 Member.
*YP*
