Date of filing : 12.04.2012
Date of order : 27.07.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE AT VELLORE DISTRICT.
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.B.L., PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc. B.L., MEMBER – I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER -II
WEDNESDAY THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 48 / 2012
D. Abrahamraj,
S/o. Daniel Nadar, Proprietor,
No.226, Main Bazzar Road,
Vellore – 632 004. …Complainant
-Vs
1. M/s.Tudor India Pvt., Ltd.,
Corporate Registered Office,
Suman Towers, 1st Floor, Sector-II,
Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat-382 011.
2. M/s. Krishna Power Products,
Rep. by its Owner P. Ganesh,
S/o. Pichandi Mudaliyar,
Office No. 19, Balaji Complex,
Sathuvachari,
Vellore – 632 009.
3. Ramesh, Agent of Krishna Power Products,
Office No. 19, Balaji Complex,
Sathuvachari,
Vellore – 632 009. …Opposite Parties
Counsel for complainant : Thiru. R. Santhanam.
Counsel for first opposite party : Thiru. V. Balusamy
Counsel for second opposite party : Thiru. Pon. Devarajan.
Third opposite party : Set exparte (24.03.2015)
ORDER
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER -II
This complaint has been filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant has prayed for Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount of Rs.42,000/- with 12% interest from the date of purchase of batteries and to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- as cost to the complaint.
1. The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant is running a Guest House namely Aleim Guest House and the same is situated at Vellore city. The patients of CMC hospital are accommodated in the guest house. One Mr. Ramesh who is the agent of the second opposite party, had approached the complainant and informed that the second opposite party is a dealer of the Prestolite batteries and purchased from the second opposite party and handed over to the complainant. When he purchased the said batteries, the second and third opposite parties promised that the battery will withstand for 5.5 hours backup. The cost of the batteries was Rs.42,000/-. The warranty period of the batteries was 0-18 months for replacement of new battery at 30% discount on prevailing MRP. But within 5 days from the installation of the said battery, the batteries did not withstand for 5.5 hours backup as promised by the second and third opposite parties. Regarding this, the complainant informed the third opposite party. In turn he referred the matter to the second opposite party. The second opposite party sent their service personnel and gave free service and the defect was set right. Once again the said battery became fault and it supplied current only for half an hour instead of 5.5 hours. When the complainant informed the same to the third opposite party, he did not give any answer. Hence he had approached the second opposite party in person and he also wrote a letter on 03.05.2011 and 12.05.2011, regarding the battery faults. In response the second opposite party, in their letter stated that the material was not purchased from the second opposite party. But in the warranty card and the receipt by the second opposite party name was mentioned. Hence the first and second opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for providing defective battery. Hence there is deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
2. Written version of opposite parties are as follows:
The second opposite party was the distributor of Tudor Batteries. This opposite party was not at all having any relationship with third opposite party and is not a agent of Krishna Power Products owned by the second opposite party. The second opposite party has no connection or dealing with the complainant. The complainant has not purchased the batteries from the second opposite party they would have issued a bill for the batteries along with delivery note. The complainant has not filed the bill to substantiate his claim, as if it was purchased from the second opposite party. The efficiency of batteries will depend upon the day to day maintenance. The batteries should be maintained with due care and periodical service. The batteries will fail if is not maintained properly as per the norms laid down in the manual. The third opposite party is not an employee or an agent of this opposite party who has been alleged that he has sold the batteries to
the complainant. In the absence of direct contract between the complainant and
this opposite party, he is not liable for any deficiency of service and not liable to pay any compensation. The batteries were used for commercial purpose and lodges. Hence the complainant should have taken double the care to maintain the batteries on day to day basis. The complainant has filed this case only to blackmail this opposite party. He has not come with clean hands. Even the claim is excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary cost.
3. Though the notice was received by the third opposite party from this Hon’ble Commission. The third opposite party did not appear before this commission. There was no representation on the side of the third opposite party and therefore, the third opposite party is called absent and set exparte.
4. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A15 were marked. Proof affidavit of first opposite party not filed. Documents not filed. Proof affidavit of second opposite party filed. Documents not filed. Written argument of complainant filed. Written argument of second opposite party filed. Oral argument of Complainant side heard. Third opposite party called absent and set exparte.
5. THE POINTS THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION ARE:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
Parties 1 to 3?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the
complaint?
3. To what other relief, the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINT NO.1 & 2: The complainant has purchased the 4 sets of Prestolite batteries from the third opposite party on 15.04.2010, which was manufactured by the first opposite party. The second opposite party is the dealer of the first opposite party. The allegation of the complainant is that after purchasing the batteries, within few days the said batteries developed problem and backup did not withstand even for 5.5 hours as promised. Hence the complainant made a complaint with the third opposite party, who in turned referred the matter to second opposite party. And the second opposite party rectified the said defect, free of cost. Therefore, the said backup did not withstand even for half an hour as against assured time of 5.5 hours. This time the second opposite party refused to service the said batteries on the ground that the complainant did not purchase the aforesaid batteries from the second opposite party. When we go through the warranty card issued by the first opposite party, we find that the numbers of batteries mentioned in the warranty card and the payment receipt are tallied. Further in the warranty card we find that the seal of the Shri Krishna Power Products is none other than the sister concern of Krishna Tyres. Therefore, we confirm that the said product, was sold by the second opposite party. Admittedly the second opposite party is the dealer of the first opposite party. Even assuming the complainant purchased the batteries some where else the second opposite party is bound to make service as the dealer of the first opposite party. Admittedly in the first occasion he has given service to the said batteries but he has refused to service the batteries on second and subsequent occasion stating that the product was not purchased from his shop. In any event the said product was giving problem during the warranty period. It is bound duty of the first opposite party to attend to the defects of this products, by themselves or through this authorized dealer. In the present case admittedly, the first and second opposite party did not attend to the defects of their products, which was within the warranty period. Hence the first and second opposite parties are held responsible for this action and thereby they have deficiency of service. During the argument the counsel for the opposite party contented that the complainant is running a guest house for commercial purpose and hence is not a consumer under the Contract Act 1986. Per Contra the complainant’s counsel submitted that the complainant is running this guest house for his livelihood, therefore the complainant is a consumer within the preview of Consumer Protection Act with this regard we accept the argument of the complainant and held that this complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, these Point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
7. POINT NOS. 3: As we have decided in Point Nos.1 and 2 that there is deficiency of service on part of the first and second opposite parties. The first and second opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs.42,000/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand only) the cost of the battery with 12% interest p.a. from 15.04.2010 to till date of this order and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. This Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
8. In the result this complaint is partly allowed. The first and second opposite parties are jointly or severally directed to pay Rs.42,000/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand only) the cost of the battery with 12% interest p.a. from 15.04.2010 to till date of this order and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- ( Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of this order to till the date of realization. As against third opposite party this complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 27th July,2022.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1-15.04.2010 - The four warranty cards for the 4 sets of Batteries issued
by the second opposite party
Ex.A2-15.04.2010 - Copy of the Voucher issued by the Krishna tyers
Ex.A3-10.01.2011 - copy of the two receipts issued by the power house
technologies for Rs.500/-
Ex.A4-26.01.2011 - The Two service reports of the batteries issued by the
Krishna power products
Ex.A5-03.05.2011 - Copy of the letter sent to the second
opposite party by the complainant
Ex.A6-04.05.2011 - The reply letter of the second opposite party sent to the
complainant
Ex.A7-12.05.2011 - The service Report Kelcom Engineers
Ex.A8-12.05.2011 - Copy of the letter sent to the opposite parties
1 and 2 by the complainant
Ex.A9-19.05.2011 - Acknowledgement card signed by the second opposite
party
Ex.A10-02.06.2011 - Legal Notice sent by the second opposite party to the
Complainant
Ex.A11-28.06.2011 - The Office copy of the reply notice sent to the second
opposite party by the complainant
Ex.A12-12.07.2011 - The daily activity report
Ex.A13-07.01.2012 - Copy of the letter sent to the second and third opposite
party by the complainant
Ex.A14-09.01.2012 - Postal acknowledgement card
Ex.A15-20.01.2012 - Legal Notice sent to the complainant by the second
opposite party
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS: -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
