DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:541 of 2011] Date of Institution : 25.11.2011 Date of Decision : 29.03.2012 M/s Wagner Huber Pharma Pvt. Ltd. SCO No.170, Top Floor, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh through its Manager Mr. Raj Narayan Yadav. ---Complainant. VERSUS [1] M/s Su-kam Power Systems Ltd., (Service Centre), 26/7, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh through its Manager Mr. Rahul Sandhu. [2] M/s Omax Marketing, Plot No.26/7, Industrial Area, Phase-2, Chandigarh through its Proprietor Mr. Yadwinder Ahuja. ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. R. N. Yadav, Manager (Administration) of the complainant. OPs already exparte. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT 1. M/s. Wagner Huber Pharma Pvt. Ltd. through its Manager Sh. Raj Narayan Yadav has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed:- i) To refund a sum of Rs.9,800/- paid by the complainant being the price of battery in question along with interest @18% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e.29.06.2010; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and physical harassment. iii) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation; iv) To award any other relief, which the Forum deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 29.06.2010, he purchased 3.5 KVA Su-kam make Inverter along with four batteries from OP No.2 vide Invoice No.241 worth Rs.56,000/- including VAT etc. He paid Rs.19,230/- for HUPS of 3.5 KVA 48V and Rs.32,000/- for four pieces of Battery SMF 150 AH i.e. costing Rs.8,000/- each.. The total VAT calculated on the purchase of these items was Rs.4,769/-. As per the quotation dated 22.06.2010 (Annexure C-3), the said batteries were having guarantee of 15 months from the date of their purchase. According to the complainant, out of those four batteries, one battery became dead. The complainant lodged a complaint with the OPs and the said battery was replaced within the guarantee period. It is pleaded that after a few months, the replaced battery also got dead. It is averred that the Serial Number and the date of the battery, which became dead, was HSLJ100319 and 09.09.2010 respectively. The complainant again lodged the complaint with the Customer Care on 28.06.2011. The said complaint was forwarded by the Customer Care to the Chandigarh Service Centre on 29.06.2011. It is averred that the Chandigarh Service Centre refused to replace the said battery for want of delivery challan. According to the complainant, no delivery challan was given to him at the time of replacement of the battery by the Chandigarh Service Centre. When the complainant asked for the office copy of delivery challan kept by the Service Centre, the Service Centre Executive namely Sh. Krishan told that there is no delivery challan with the Service Centre. The complainant also sent email dated 11.07.2011 to the Area Manager namely Sh. Rahul Sandhu and Sh. Sidharth Mathur, Regional Manager (North) but they failed to respond. According to the complainant, non replacement of the dead battery within the guarantee period of 15 months amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. Notices were served on the OPs through Process Server. However, none appeared on their behalf and therefore, both the OPs were ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.01.2012. 4. We have heard Sh. R. N. Yadav, Manager (Administration) appearing on behalf of the complainant and also have perused the record. 5. From the perusal of Invoice/Bill dated 29.06.2010 (Annexure C-1), it is proved that the complainant purchased one Su-kam make Inverter of 3.5 KVA along with four batteries from OP No.2. As per the Invoice, he paid Rs.8,000/- each for four batteries totaling Rs.32,000/-. Annexure C-7 is the copy of Quotation dated 22.06.2010 according to which the SMF batteries in question were having guarantee of 15 months from the date of their purchase. Admittedly, out of the four batteries, one battery became dead, which was replaced within the warranty period. The case of the complainant is that the replaced battery also got dead and vide E-mail dated 28.06.2011 (Annexure C-4) he lodged a complaint with the OPs and requested them to replace of the said battery. 6. Annexure C-6 is the Field Service Report dated 30.06.2011. According to the Service Engineer, who attended the complaint, the battery was giving low back up as he has himself reported the same remarks in the column “Problem Found’. At the end of the said report, the said Service Engineer has recommended for replacement of the defective battery. From this report, it is apparently proved that the second replaced battery was not giving adequate backup and was defective. 7. Annexure C-8 is the copy of E-mail dated 12.07.2011 sent by Chandigarh Service Centre to the complainant. Vide this E-mail, the Service Centre has showed its inability to replace the already replaced battery in the absence of Delivery Challan, which was issued to the complainant at the time of replacement of the first battery by the Company. Admittedly, the replaced battery in question is under warranty period as admitted by the OPs in their E-mail dated 11.07.2011 (Annexure C-9). If the copy of Delivery Challan is not available with the complainant, he cannot be denied replacement of the defective battery, which is still under warranty. The OPs must have kept one copy of the Delivery Challan in their record. So, refusal to replace the defective battery within the warranty period amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the absence of any reply from the side of OPs, who chose not to appear before the Forum, the averments made in the complaint have gone un-rebutted. 8. As the battery in question has not been replaced so far to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, so, OPs are liable to refund its price. 9. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with the following directions to OPs, jointly and severally to: - (i) refund a sum of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant being the Invoice price of the battery in question.OPs are directed to collect the battery in question at their own cost. (ii) pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment; (iii) pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation; 10. This order be complied with by OPs jointly and severally within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund the invoice price of the battery i.e. Rs.8,000/- to the complainant along with interest @18% per annum from the date of invoice i.e.29.06.2010 till actual payment whereas the amount of compensation of Rs.3,000/- shall also carry interest at the same rate i.e.18% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint i.e.25.11.2011 till actual payment besides payment of Rs.7,000/- as costs of litigation. 11. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced. 29th March, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT [DISCENTED] (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/-
C.C.No.541 of 2011 Present: None. --- Arguments were heard on 20.03.2012. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint has been allowed. After compliance file be consigned to the record room. Announced. 29.03.2012. (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
