Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/84/2011

Sheela Rani W/o Brij Pal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Metro Motors - Opp.Party(s)

M.R Aneja

05 Jun 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                             Complaint No… 84  of 2011.

                                                                                             Date of institution: 1.2.2011.

                                                                                             Date of decision: 5.6.2015.

Smt. Sheela Rani wife of Sh. Brij Pal resident of House No. 1149/6 Durga Nagar Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. M/s Metro Motors, authorized dealer of Tata Motor Ltd. Bhai Kanhiya Sahib Chowk, Yamuna Nagar through its Manager.
2. M/s Metro Motor, Tejli Gate Near LIC Office, Jagadhri through its service Manager.
3. Exide Industries Ltd. C/o Hari Har Trading Co., Basement Yamaha Dealership Court Road, Jagadhri through its Manager.       

 

                                                                                                                                        …Opposite parties.

                        Complaint under section 12 of       

                        the Consumer Protection Act.

 

CORAM:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. D.P.Bhatnagar, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

               Sh. Vikas Aggarwal, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2 .

               OP No.3 ex-parte.                

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                        Brief facts of the present case are that the complainant purchased a car TATA Indigo CSLXE-III bearing chassis No. MAT607161AWD17474, Engine No. 1475IDTI4DZYP31077 ( hereinafter referred as ‘said car’ )on 14.5.2010 for a sum of Rs. 4,65,968/- from the Opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.5 dated 14.5.2010 for use of her family and the battery make Exide bearing No. 2CO100481 stands installed in the said car. Opposite party No.1 is the authorized dealer of manufacturer of said car and opposite party No.2 is the workshop of opposite party no.1 and opposite party No.3 is the dealer of Exide Batteries which was installed in the said car. At the time of delivery of abovesaid car on 14.5.2010, the opposite party No.1 issued a warranty card of the Exide battery which stands installed in the said car duly appended on it seal of Firm which is (Annexure C-4) in which type of battery has been mentioned as Exide and serial number 2C0 00481 has also been shown. As per warranty clause of warranty card (Annexure C-4), the warranty period of the battery has been shown as 12 months from the date of sale of vehicle or 15 months from the month of manufacture of the battery whichever is earlier. Since the car in question was purchased on 14.5.2010, hence the warranty period of the said battery was from 14.5.2010 to 13.5.2011 i.e. 12 months from the date of purchase of the said car. After few months of the use of the said car, it started giving problem in starting and after noticing it, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and told him about the problem of the said car and requested for replacing the battery of the said car upon which the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant to contact the service manager of the workshop i.e. OP No.2. Accordingly the complainant immediately on 16.10.2010 reached at the workshop of OP No.1 on the same day and service Manager of the OP No.2 obtained the battery from the complainant and assured him that the battery will be got replaced with a new one as the same is within the limitation of warranty period and asked to wait for 2-3 hours.

                        On the same day, when the complainant again visited at workshop, he was surprised to know that claim for replacing the defective battery of the complainant was turned down by the OP No.3 by refusing to replace the said defective battery and returned the said battery vide delivery challan Ex. C-3 in which remarks was given “ Warranty for Exide battery was 50,000KM whereas the vehicle runs 60,000 KM.” When genuine claim was rejected then complainant orally protested the same and told that no such clause is appended or stipulated anywhere in the warranty card given to the complainant but OP No.3 did not pay any heed to the genuine request of complainant.  As such the opposite parties played unfair trade practice and there is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, due to which the complainant has suffered a lot of mental agony & harassment and prayed for directing the OPs to replace the defective battery of the said car as per the conditions stipulated in the warranty card  and also to pay amount of rent of the battery which was paid by the complainant to run  her car  and also to pay compensation for mental agony, harassment and cost of proceedings.

2.                     Upon notice, OP No.1 &2 appeared and filed their written statement  but OP No.3 failed to appear despite service, hence he was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.8.2011.  The OP No.1 &2 filed written statement taking some preliminary objections such as maintainability and concealment of material facts from this Forum and further on merit stated that as per service history of the car in question, the defect in the battery was observed by the OP No.3 on 4.7.2011 and the same was rejected on the ground that vehicle had run 60000 KM whereas warranty was up to 50000 KM as stated in para No.2 of the written statement on merit.  It is further alleged that complainant nowhere mentioned about the defect in the battery in question since its purchased from M/s Metro Motors and last job was carried out on 1.2.2011 while covering 83171 KM regarding power window not working properly and same was replaced and lastly it has been prayed that complaint of the complainant be dismissed.

3.                     To prove the case, counsel for complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Annexure C-1 Photo copy of Job Card dated 16.12.2010, Annexure C-2 Photo copy of battery claim receipt note dated 16.12.2010, Annexure C-3 Photo copy of battery delivery challan dated 16.12.2010, Annexure C-4 Photo copy of warranty card. On the other hand, counsel for the OP No.1&2 tendered into evidence document Annexure R-1 Authority letter dated 5.11.2011, Annexure R-2 Copy of Service job card, R-3 Copy of letter dated 30.6.2008 regarding extension of warranty issued by TATA Motors and closed the evidence. 

4.                     We have heard the complainant as well as counsel for the OP No.1 &2 and have gone through carefully and minutely the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance, whereas the counsel for OP No.1 &2 reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

                       It is admitted fact that the complainant lodged his complaint regarding starting problem with the opposite party No.1 on 16.12.2010 which is evident from the Annexure- C-1 i.e. Job Card dated 16.12.2010. It is also admitted fact that opposite party No.3 received the battery for checking from the complainant vide claim receipt Note dated 16.12.2010 as per Annexure C-2 and it is evident from Annexure C-3 that opposite party No.3 rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground that “ as per service record of the said car, the last service was done on 9000 KM and now the said car runs 60000 KM and battery warranty was up to 50000 KM.” Learned counsel for the complainant argued that as per warranty card the battery in question was having 12 months warranty from the date of sale of the vehicle and 15 months from the date of manufacturing of the battery and no such type of condition of 50000 kilometers is mentioned in the warranty card handed over by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 at the time of sale of the said car. In this way the opposite party No.3 has wrongly rejected the genuine claim of the complainant. This conduct of the opposite party No.3 shows deficiency in service, negligence and harassment to the complainant.  

5.                     On the other hand, OP No.1&2 argued that complainant has nowhere mentioned about the defect in the battery in question since its purchase from M/s Metro Motors Ambala and as per service record of car,  last job was carried out on 1.2.2011 and at that time the car had covered 83171 KM and this job card was appended regarding repair of power window and no complaint regarding battery was lodged by the complainant at that time. Counsel for the opposite parties referred Annexure R-3 issued by TATA Motors in which it is mentioned that M/s Exide has enhanced the warranty period for the batteries used on cars, 18 months from the date of sale and 21 months from the date of manufacturing whichever is earlier subject to maximum 50,000KM run. The said warranty term will be applicable to all the cars on or from 1.3.2008 and lastly prayed that complainant has not suffered any loss and agony at the hands of the OPs No.1 & 2.  It has been denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6.                    From the perusal of the documents and material available on the case file, it has been established that the complainant got checked his battery from Exide Industries Limited through its service centre, Yamuna Nagar as per Annexure C-2 copy of claim receipt dated 16.12.2010 and the claim of the complainant was rejected on  the same day on the ground that vehicle runs 60,000 KM whereas warranty of exide battery was up to 50,000 KMs.

                        We have gone through the warranty card Ex. C-4 and noticed that no such condition of 50,000 KM is mentioned therein whereas battery is having warranty of 12 months. Furthermore, as per Annexure R-3, warranty has been increased from 18 months to 21 months by the Exide Battery i.e. OP No.3 subject to the condition of 50000 KM mentioned in the letter Annexure R-3. We are of the considered view that kilometers have no effect on the life of the battery and claim of the complainant has been wrongly rejected by the OP No.3 on false ground which was under the currency of warranty. Hence after going through the contention of both the parties, we are of the view that opposite party No.3 could not provide proper services to the complainant and thus OP No.3 is guilty for not replacing defective battery and there is deficiency in services on the part of OPs. Hence, we have no option, except to allow the present complaint and thus, we direct the OP No.3 to comply with the following directions within 30 days from the date of communication of this order:-

1.                     To replace the defective battery in question with new one of same model subject to return of the old battery to OP No.3.

2.                     To pay a sum of Rs. 1000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 500/- for litigation expenses.        

                         The aforesaid directions must be complied with by the OP No.3 within the stipulated period failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum as per law. The complaint is partly accepted accordingly in the above terms. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court.

Dated: 5.6.2015.                 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.