Date of filing: 07.01.2014.
Date of disposal: 17.09.2014.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II:
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT
Present: Smt N. Tripura Sundari, B. Com., B. L., President (FAC)
Sri S. Sreeram, B.Com., B.A., B.L., Member
Wednesday, the 17th day of September, 2014
C.C.No.19 of 2014
Between:
Bhagavan Sri Satya Sai Seva Sadan, Door No.15-143, Prasadampadu, Vijayawada – 520008, Krishna District, Rep: by its Secretary Sri V. Hareendra Babu, S/o Nagabhushanam, Age 63 years.
…..Complainant.
And
1. M/s Rohan Technologies, Rep: by its Proprietor, 28-16-8A, Chintavari Street, Near Rama Mandiram, Arundalpet, Eluru Road, Vijayawada – 520002.
2. Rahimafrooz Batteries Limited, Rep: by its Managing Director, LSC, B-7, Plot No.11, Nelson Mandela Marg, Vasant Arcade, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi – 110070.
.. … Opposite parties.
This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 8.9.2014, in the presence of Sri M.V.L. Narayana Sastry & Sri B.L.V. Phanish Kumar, advocates for complainant; Sri Karnati Rama Mohan Rao, advocate for 1st opposite party; opposite party no.2 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S. Sreeram)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act against the opp.parties1 and 2 directing them to refund costs and transport and installation expenses i.e. Rs.16,500/- together with interest at 18% p.a., to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony, costs of the complaint and for other reliefs.
1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:
The complainant is a seva organization which conducts various seva activities and the complainant being induced by the advertisements made by the 1stopp.party purchased Inverter along with battery vide cash invoice No.35, dt.6.4.2012 for Rs.16,000/- which includes UPS, trally and Battery and that the complainant was incurred Rs.500/- towards transportation and installation and that the complainant got installed the same. While so, in the month of August, 2013 the battery started giving trouble and the complainant informed the same to 1stopp.party over phone who deputed technician on 5-9-2013 and stated that the battery is not working due to defect in battery and took the Xerox copy of bill and informed that the battery would be replaced with a new one. But the 1stopp.party failed to replace the same. The complainant having waited for 10 days addressed a registered letter to 1stopp.party on 21.9.2013 demanding to replace the new battery. The 1stopp.party received the same, but failed to comply with the demand, which amounts to deficiency in service and thereby caused mental agony to complainant. Hence, the complaint
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties. The 1stopp.party received the notice and filed version. After several adjournments, the complainant provided correct address of 2ndopp.party and finally on 30-5-2014 the notice of 2ndopp.party served. Sri P.SatishBabu filed offers memo for 2ndopp.party, but subsequently not filed Vakalat and version on behalf of 2ndopp.party. As such the 2ndopp.party remained absent. The 1stopp.party filed version denying the material allegations made in the complaint and stated that they are the only distributors and used to sell goods and that the advertisement and other paper material belongs to the 2ndopp.party and that they are no way concerned with it. It is further contended that the 1stopp.party is not an authorized service center and that at the request of complainant, the technician visited the complainant and observed that the batter is not proper and suggested the complainant to send the said battery for verification, but the complainant not do so and that there is no deficiency in service on their part and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his chief affidavit reiterating the material averments of the complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 on his behalf. The chief affidavit of opp.party No.1 is not filed and no documents were marked.
4. Heard complainant. In spite of several adjournments, the 1stopp.party not advanced arguments. Hence treated as heard and matter reserved for orders. Perused the record.
5. Now the points that stood for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opp.parties in supplying the defective battery to complainant?
- If so, to what relief.
Point No.1:
6. The undisputed facts in this case are that the 2ndopp.party is manufacturer of battery and the 1stopp.party is authorized dealer of same and that the complainant purchased the Inverter from the 1stopp.party, which contains battery Globat Volta Battery Model No.N150AHB, Sl.6677 manufactured by 2ndopp.partyon 06.04.2012 under Ex.A1 cash invoice for Rs.16,000/-. The broacher of the 2ndopp.party which contains warranty conditions etc., is marked as Ex.A2. Ex.A2 is nothing but warranty card. Perusal of Ex.A2 discloses that the warranty for battery is 18 months flat warranty. The main grievance of the complainant is that in the month of August, 2013 the battery started giving trouble and the complainant informed the same to 1stopp.party over phone and that the 1stopp.party deputed technician on 5-9-2013 who stated that the battery is not working due to defect in battery and took the Xerox copy of bill and informed that the battery would be replaced with a new one. But there is no response from the 1stopp.party. As such the complainant got issued legal notice on 21.9.2013 under Ex.A3 demanding the 1stopp.party to replace the battery with a new one. Ex.A4 is acknowledgment of 1stopp.party. In this regard, the contention of 1stopp.party is only that they are no way concerned with the defect in the batteries as they are only distributors and that further they are not the authorized service center.
7. According to the complainant, there is 18 months warrant for the said battery, which is not denied by the 1stopp.party. Admittedly the complainant purchased the inverter in the month of April, 2012 and identified defect in August, 2013. As such the battery is within warranty period. In this case, the 2ndopp.party has not made its appearance and not filed any version denying the allegations as far as guided against it. Further the 1stopp.party also not filed chief affidavit and marked any documents. As such the allegations made by the complainant and the documents Ex.A1 to A4 are also unchallenged one. The contention of 1stopp.party is only that they are authorized distributors only and as such they are not liable to replace the battery. Perusal of record discloses that the 1stopp.party also admitted in its version about visiting of technician and informing about the defect in the battery. As such, it is clear that there is a defect in the battery which is manufactured by 2ndopp.party and which was sold by 1stopp.party. As such the opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to replace the same with new one or rectify the problem. But they failed to do so. The battery is within warranty period. As such the complainant is entitled for a new battery or the cost of battery. But as seen from record, the complainant utilized the said battery for nearly one year five months without any defect. Further perusal of Ex.A1 discloses that the cost of battery is only Rs.8,700/-, but not Rs.16,000/-. As such the complainant is entitled for Rs.8,700/- only. As stated above, as the complainant used the said battery for nearly one year 5 months, he is not entitled for any interest and compensation.
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.8,700/- to the complainant besides costs of Rs.500/-. The complainant is directed to return the battery to the opposite parties on payment of amount. Time for compliance is one month and thereafter the amount shall carry interest at 9%. The other claims of complainant shall stands dismissed.
Typewritten by Steno N. Hazarathaiah, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 17th day of September, 2014.
PRESIDENT (FAC) MEMBER
Appendix of evidence
Witnesses examined
For the complainant: -None- For the opposite party: -None-
Documents marked
On behalf of the complainant:
Ex.A1 06.04.2012 Photocopy of cash invoice
Ex.A2 Photocopy of warranty card.
Ex.A3 21.09.2013 Photocopy of letter issued by complainant to OP.
Ex.A4 Photocopy of postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A5 Photocopy of mail.
On behalf of the opposite parties:
PRESIDENT (FAC).