DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 118 of 2010 Date of Inst: 04.03.2010 Date of Decision: 11.03.2011 Joginder Pal Singh son of Sh.Amarjeet Singh r/o H.No.566, Sector 69, Mohali. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. M/s United Auto Centre through its Proprietor, SCF No.4, Sector 21-C, Chandigarh. 2. M/s Exide Industries Ltd., through its General Manager, Regd. Office at 59-E, Chownghee Road, Kolkata-700020. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant Sh.Anuj Ahluwalia, Adv. for OP No.1. OP-2 exparte. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Joginder Pal Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Replace the battery with a new one. ii) Pay costs of litigation. 2. In brief the case of the complainant is that he purchased complete Exide Ina Queen 500 battery invertor set from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.14,700/- vide invoice dated 26.07.2008. The above said inverter was delivered to him on 27.07.2008. The above said inverter was having a warranty of 24 months from the date of its delivery. The relevant terms and conditions of the warranty card reads as under:- “Terms of Warranty Between 0 till 18 months | Free repair or replacement subject to conditions mentioned in warranty card. | More than 18 months but less than or equal to 21 months | Repair or replacement with new battery as per conditions which will be made available at 25% discount on the prevailing MCP. | More than 21 months but less than or equal to 24 months | Repair or replacement with new battery as per conditions which will be made available at 15% discount on the prevailing MCP.” |
It has further been pleaded that on 04.01.2010, the battery stopped functioning and became defective. So he handed over the same for its repairs/replacement to OP-1 vide job card No.428 dated 04.01.2010. OP-1 gave a standby battery of Stan Queen. However, the said battery also stopped functioning after two days. The case of the complainant is that at the time the battery was handed over to OP-1 for repairs/replacement, he was told that the battery would be returned after 15 days. So on 21.01.2010, the complainant approached OP-1 for taking back his battery after repairs/replacement. However to his utter surprise, OP-1 told him that the said battery has been completely damaged and is not repairable. He refused to replace the said battery with a new battery. According to the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the warranty card, OPs are bound to repair/replace the battery within the period mentioned in the warranty card and failure on the part of OPs amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by the OP-1, it has been pleaded that soon after the defective battery was handed over to it, it was sent to the service centre of OP-2. However, later on a letter was received from the company wherein it was mentioned that there was no manufacturing defect in the battery and the battery was damaged due to overcharging as the complainant did not take appropriate steps by putting the battery water in it. According to OP-1, in the light of terms and conditions of the warranty card, it was not under obligation to repair or replace the same as they are not at fault. The copy of the letter received by OP-1 from Op-2 has been placed on record as Annexure R-1. All other facts mentioned in the complaint regarding the purchase and defect in the battery have been admitted. In these circumstances, according to OP-1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. OP-2 was duly served through registered post but nobody appeared on its behalf either in person or through counsel. Therefore, it was ordered to be proceeded against exparte vide order dated 02.07.2010. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc. 6. From the letter dated 14.09.2010(Annexure R-1), it is apparent that the claim regarding the repair/replacement of the battery has been declined on the following grounds: “1) xxxxxx 2) Battery plates having got hardened/sulphated due to battery staying in an over discharged condition for long periods. This could be because of invertor not functioning properly or invertor lying idle for long period or lower battery voltage cut-off not functioning in the invertor. 3) xxxx 4). Battery has been overcharged resulting in degradation of the plates. Overcharging usually occurs because of improper setting of the charging cut-out or malfunctioning of the invertor’s charging system. 5) xxxx 6) xxxx 7) xxxx 8) xxxx 9) The battery was purchased on 26.07.2008. As such the warranty period has expired on 25.01.2010”. 7. No report of any expert has been placed on record to prove that the plates hardened/sulphated due to overcharging of the battery. In these circumstances, the contents of letter (Annexure R-1) cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the battery was under warranty as the period of 24 months had not expired from the date of its purchase. So the complainant is entitled to the repair/replacement of the battery as per terms and conditions mentioned on the warranty card, which has been reproduced above. In these circumstances, non-repairing or replacement of the battery as per the terms and conditions of the warranty card, amounts to deficiency in service. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs to refund Rs.8075/- (after deducting 15% i.e. Rs.1425/- from Rs.9500/- being the price of battery). OPs are also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides a sum of Rs.7000/- as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with jointly and severally by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to refund the aforesaid total amount to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization besides costs of litigation. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 11.03.2011 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
