BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.264 of 2015

Date of Instt. 15.6.2015

Date of Decision :05.05.2016

Amit Beri aged about 35 years son of Late Shri Krishan Kishore Beri, R/o 396-A, Surya Enclave, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Malhotra Storage Batteries, Plot No.5, Kala Sanghian Road, Basti Sheikh, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory.

2. M/s SU-KAM Power Systems Ltd., 54, Sector-37, Udyog Vihar, Phase-VI, Gurgaon-122001, through its authorized signatory.

3. M/s SU-KAM authorized service centre, Opp.Henry Petrol Pump, Jalandhar through its authorized signatory.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.KO Singh Adv., counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Yogesh Malhotra Adv., counsel for the OP No.1.

Sh.Surinder Singh Adv., counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that complainant purchased one battery make Sukam 120V 150AH Power Bank Battery vide invoice dated 21.5.2013 for sum of Rs.6400/- from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 with warranty. The complainant submitted that the battery has warranty of 24 months. After installation of the aforesaid battery, it started giving problem of back-up. Complainant approached OP No.3 through OP No.1 who lodged the complaint but did not provide any complaint number to the complainant. However, they assured the complainant that defect in the battery would be rectified but they failed to rectify the defect in the battery. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaint on the toll free number of OP No.2 with complaint NO.16050439329 and the complainant was assured that the defect in the battery would be rectified. Then an engineer of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and checked the battery and stated that the battery needs replacement and told to the complainant that Rs.10,000/- will be charged. The complainant approached OPs No.1 & 3, time and again to rectify the defect in the battery or to replace the same but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice dated 21.3.2015 upon the OPs through registered post but the OPs neither replaced the battery nor rectified its defect nor even submitted any reply to the legal notice served by the complainant upon the OPs. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for OPs to replace the battery with new one or to refund the amount of the battery. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice OPs appeared through counsels and filed their written replies. In its written reply OP No.1 pleaded that OP No.1 sold the battery in question manufactured by OP No.2 to the complainant with warranty of 24 months i.e. after expiry of guarantee period of 18 months, the consumer can avail the warranty period of 6 months and can get the battery replaced from the manufacturer after paying fixed amount.

3. In their separate written reply, OPs No.2 & 3 pleaded that complainant made complaint regarding defect in the battery in question on 13.5.2015 and on the very next day the service engineer visited the house of the complainant as per service report dated 14.5.2015 and after inspection found that battery was purchased on 21.5.2013 with 18 months warranty which had expired on 20.11.2014. The battery was out of guarantee period which is 18 months and not for 24 months. So OPs were justified in not replacing the battery with new one.

4. In support of his complaint, complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence. Further learned counsel for OPs No.2 & 3 tendered affidavit Ex.OP2&3/1A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP2&3/1 to Ex.OP2&3/5 and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased one battery make Sukam 120V 150AH Power Bank Battery vide invoice dated 21.5.2013 Ex.C1 for a sum of Rs.6400/- from OP No.1 manufactured by OP No.2 with warranty Ex.C2. The complainant submitted that the battery has warranty of 24 months. After installation of the aforesaid battery, it started giving problem of back-up. Complainant approached OP No.3 through OP No.1 who lodged the complaint but did not provide any complaint number to the complainant. However, they assured the complainant that defect in the battery would be rectified but they failed to rectify the defect in the battery. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaint on the toll free number of OP No.2 with complaint No.16050439329 and the complainant was assured that the defect in the battery would be rectified. Then a engineer of OP No.2 visited the house of the complainant and checked the battery and stated that the battery needs replacement and told to the complainant that Rs.10,000/- will be charged. The complainant approached OPs No.1 & 3, time and again to rectify the defect in the battery or to replace the same but the OPs did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. The complainant also served legal notice dated 21.3.2015 Ex.C3 upon the OPs through registered post, post receipts which are Ex.C4 to Ex.C6 but the OPs neither replaced the battery nor rectified its defect nor even submitted any reply to the legal notice served by the complainant upon the OPs. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that all this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. Whereas, the case of the OP No.2 is that OP No.1 sold the battery in question manufactured by OP No.2 to the complainant with warranty of 24 months i.e. after expiry of guarantee period of 18 months, the consumer can avail the warranty period of 6 months and can get the battery replaced from the manufacturer after paying fixed amount. Whereas the case of the OPs No.2 & 3 is that complainant made complaint regarding defect in the battery in question on 13.5.2015 and on the very next day the service engineer visited the house of the complainant as per service report dated 14.5.2015 Ex.OP4 and after inspection found that battery was purchased on 21.5.2013 with 18 months warranty which had expired on 20.11.2014. The battery was out of guarantee period which is 18 months and not for 24 months. So, OPs were justified in not replacing the battery with new one. Therefore, the learned counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. From the entire above discussion and particularly from the perusal of the warranty card of the battery in question produced by both the parties i.e. Ex.C2 and Ex.OP3, it stands fully proved on record that complainant purchased one Sukam 120V 150AH Power Bank Battery from OP No.1 on 21.5.2013 vide invoice Ex.C1 manufactured by OP No.2. The complainant submitted that the warranty of this 150AH battery is for 24 months from the date of purchase or 30 months from the date of manufacturing whichever is earlier with free replacement during warranty period. Whereas, the OP submitted that the warranty of this 150AH battery was for 18 months from the date of purchase and 24 months from the date of manufacturing which ever is earlier. In the warranty period table produced by OP itself Ex.OP3, the warranty period of 150AH battery is either for 24 months from the date of purchase or 30 months from the date of manufacturing which ever is earlier or a warranty from 19 to 24 months and no where in this warranty period it is mentioned that 150AH battery has warranty of 18 months as alleged by the OP. The OP produced one certificate Ex.OP2&3/5 that battery purchased by OP is not a tubular battery but no where in the invoice Ex.C1, it has been written that the battery is non tubular battery or tubular battery. As such, this certificate has no relevance with the battery in question purchased by the complainant because the complainant was never told at the time of purchase whether the battery is tubular or not a tubular battery. Moreover, no difference has been mentioned in the warranty period table produced by both the parties Ex.C2 and Ex.OP3 that period of warranty is different for tubular battery and non tubular battery. It is well settled law that where there is dispute regarding period of warranty, the concept favourable to the consumer is to be accepted. This fact also stand proved on record from the job sheet i.e. service report issued by engineer of the OPs Ex.OP4 that this power bank battery 150AH has warranty of 24 months. The battery became defective and was checked by engineer of the OP through this service report dated 14.5.2015 within 24 months of the date of purchase of the battery in question by the complainant and in this service report engineer has categorically stated that battery is non repairable. So, OPs No.2 & 3 are liable to replace the battery in question as it became defective within warranty period.

9. Resultantly, we allow the complaint with cost and OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to replace the battery with new one of the same make and model or to refund the amount of the battery to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The OPs No.2 & 3 also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation expenses to the complainant. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Bhupinder Singh

05.05.2016 Member Member President