Date of Filing: 12.01.2016
Date of Order :30.10.2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – I, HYDERABAD
P r e s e n t
HON’BLE Sri P.Vijender, B.Sc. L.L.B. PRESIDENT.
HON’BLE Smt. D.NIRMALA, B.Com., LLB., MEMBER.
Tuesday, the 30th day of October, 2018
C.C.No.56 /2016
Between
M/s. Sravanthi Digital lab,
Represented by it’s proprietor Mr. S.Ashok,
S/o. Sri S.Narayana, aged about 45 years,
H.No.8-7-91/137,
Hasthinapuram South,
Vaishali Nagar Post, Sagar Road,
Hyderabad – 500079. ……Complainant
And
- M/s. Exide Industries Ltd.,
Regd. Office 59E,
Chowringhee Road,
Kolkata – 700020.
West Bengal (State),
Rep. by it’s Managing Director.
- M/s. Exide Industries Ltd.,
Plot No.98, 106 & 107,
1st Floor, Tadbund Cross Road,
Opp: I.B.P. Petro Bunk,
Secunderabad – 500009. ….Opposite Parties
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. K.Visweswara Rao
Counsel for the Opposite Parties : Sri S.Venkatesham
O R D E R
(By Sri. Sri P. Vijender, B.Sc., LL.B., President on behalf of the bench)
This complaint is preferred under Section 12 of C.P. Act of 1986 alleging that the Opposite Parties have caused deficiency of service by selling a defective manufactured batteries and inconsequence of it the complainant is seeking refund of the battery cost, reimburse the amount spent by him for the purchase of vital spares which were damaged, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing hardship and mental agony to him and cost of this complaint @ Rs.10,000/-.
1. The complainant case is to ekeout his livelihood he has established a small colour lab and to have an inverter he intended to purchase batteries. The opposite parties represented that, the battery manufactured by them are Long Lasting best in quality and durability and are defect less. Having believed the same on 30.09.2014 he purchased 20 numbers of Exide Power safe plus sealed maintenance free VRLA Batteries at Rs.2,500/- per battery and the total cost for the batteries was Rs.50,000/- and two years warranty was provided by the Opposite Parties for due performance of the batteries. After the installation of the batteries they are not working up to standards as they are suffering from inherent manufacturing defects. They are also improperly designed and inferior quality. The Batteries are not providing backup at all and caused much inconvenience to the complainant as he has to adhere the orders of the customers. They are also causing defects to the colour lab machine. Since, the Batteries are defective the vital spares like SMPS (400 Watts, 600 Watts), AOM, in the colour lab machine spoiled as the machine is getting closed without proper shutdown. He was constrained to secured the spares by spending a sum of Rs.64,000/-. The complainant made a complaint with the Opposite Parties informing defective performance. There upon Opposite Parties visited the site on 27.11.2014 and noticed four (4) batteries are low in providing backup and they were replaced. But, there was no improvement in performance of the inverter. Since, the problem persisted he lodged another complaint on 29.11.2014 and on the said date stand by batteries are replaced with four regular batteries. But, the problem was not solved and best backup has not yielded.
2. As the performance of the batteries continued to be low the complainant lodged a third complaint on 16.01.2015 then a representative of the Opposite Parties viz., Mr. M.A. Anas visited the site on 27.01.2015 inspected the batteries and found that six batteries are not working in proper manner and they were providing low backup hence replaced the same on 28.01.2015. But the low back up issue was not resolved and the problem persisted. Hence on 22.06.2015 he lodged another complaint and at that time two more batteries were replaced but his problem was not solved and because of the defective batteries the backup was not providing even for five minutes.
3. Because of the defective batteries and lack of proper back up the complainant’s business was affected and he could not deliver the work to the customers in the given time. As a result the complainant has lost major orders from the customers and suffered loss of reputation in the market and it effected his livelihood and suffered a financial loss of Rs.1,00,000/- in the business.
4. Since, the Opposite Parties failed to redress the complainant’s grievance of low backup and there was indifferent attitude from the Opposite Parties he got issued a legal notice on 03.09.2015 calling upon the Opposite Parties the refund the cost of the batteries reimburse the loss suffered in the business and the amount spent for the purchased of new spares. The Opposite Party No.2 received the said notice on 04.01.2015 and Opposite Party No.1 on 09.09.2015 but, even after lapse of 10 days’ time the Opposite Parties did not given any reply. The efforts made by the complainant with the Opposite Parties personally and by way of representations resulted in futile. The Opposite Parties failed to ensure proper backup even for two hours a day. As there was no response even to the legal notice the complainant filed the present complaint for the above stated reliefs.
5. Opposite Parties filed a common written version denying the allegations. Their version is Opposite Party No.1 is in the business of manufacturing of the batteries and Opposite Party No.2 is it’s local branch. Their representative never represented to the complainant that, the batteries manufactured by them are high quality durable one and will not have any defect. The Opposite Party No.1 is in the field of manufacturing of the batteries for over a period of 90 years. The complainant did not purchase batteries from the Opposite Parties who never supplies the batteries to the customers directly. Infact, Opposite Party No.1 supplies the batteries only to it’s dealers and sub dealers across the country. Their representatives never installed the batteries at the complainant’s lab.
6. On the first complaint dated 16.01.2015 from the complainant they have replaced four batteries on 21.07.2015 on second complaint the Opposite Parties have visited the site with EP26 instead of EP26 ABS based on Call Center details but the complainant did not accept the same. In March 2015 they have provided complete set of EP26-12 (ABS) 20 numbers of batteries to the complainant before and after replacement of the batteries they have requested to check the para meters but they were not allowed by the complaint. The complainant neither handed over the week batteries nor informed them till date. On the third complaint dated 17.06.2015 the Opposite Parties have replaced two batteries on 22.06.2015 free of cost. They have not sent any representative to the site of the complainant for service and the dealer or sub dealer alone has done all the works at the site of the complainant.
7. The Battery Bank installed at site can only perform in certain guidelines as per the warranty terms and conditions. The backup of two hours desired by the complainant is forbidden as supplied battery bank is not supposed to deliver two hours backup. They were consulted by the complainant prior to supply of the batteries to enquiry about the backup delivery for two hours. The Opposite Parties have replaced 20 batteries as per the load No.1269938370 dated 12.03.2015.
8. In the month of July-2015 it was observed that, spoilsport the battery bank were jointly convoyed to end customer. E.P.26-12 battery bank was not suitable for this kind of load for generate set back were not available, The customer looking for prolonged backup beyond one hour, UPS and colour photo prints does not have proper efficiency like latest products. The battery bank is grossly under designed and they have to install atleast 65 AH battery bank in the circumstances. Before purchase of the batteries from sub dealer the main dealer M/s. EPC Hyderabad have not consulted the Exide technical team of the Opposite Party and they have not done correct sizing calculation and noticed that battery bank was grossly under designed. As such, there was neither negligence nor deficiency of service by the Opposite Parties. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for refund of the cost of the batteries, compensation etc. and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
6. In the enquiry stage Mr. Ashok who is the proprietor of complainant’s Firm has got filed his evidence affidavit reiterating the substance of complaint averments. He also got exhibited 12 documents in support of his case. For the Opposite Parties the evidence affidavit of Mr. Saravanam stated to be authorized person on their behalf is filed and no document his exhibited for them.
7. On a consideration of material available on the record the following points have arisen for consideration.
- Whether the batteries purchased by complainant to run his invertor are defective at the stage of manufacturing itself ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled refund the cost of the batteries purchased from the Opposite Parties and other amounts claimed in the complaint ?
- To what relief ?
- Point No.1: As evidenced by Ex.A1 Sale Invoice the complainant had purchased 20 batteries for a total sum of Rs.50,000/- from Sri Sai Power Solutions Ex.A2 & A3 are the warranty cards in which the name of either Sri Sai Power Solutions or that of the manufacturer is mentioned. It is pertinent to see that, the Opposite Parties have not denied either the purchase by the complainant or manufacture of batteries by them and that the warranties in Ex.A2 & 3 are not binding on them. Even, otherwise, the bottom coloumn on the extreme left of Exs. A2 & A3 clearly shows that they were manufactured by the Opposite Parties. One of the defence taken by the Opposite Parties in the written version is that they have not sold the batteries in the complainant and they are not aware as to from whom the complainant purchased the same. It is further contended on behalf of Opposite Parties that in the absence of the dealer or sub-dealer from whom the complainant purchased the sub batteries the present complaint alleging deficiency of service is not maintainable. It is pertinent to bear in mind that basing on the complaints lodged by complainant the Opposite Parties Representative visited the site of the complainant and replaced the batteries according to their written version. If, the Opposite Parties stand that since batteries were not sold by them and they are not liable for any claim of the complainant on account of not disclosing as to from whom these batteries were purchased by the complainant is to be true then they have not explained as to what made them to send their person to replace the batteries which were not working is not explained. Ex.A4 is the delivery note dated 26.11.2014, Ex.A5 is the site inspection report and it discloses that four of the batteries were low voltage so, four new batteries standby were replaced. Ex.A6 is the Job completion Certificate from Opposite Party No.2 and it mentions date of complaint lodged by the complainant and date of visit by the representative. Ex.A7 is the another job completion certificate from Opposite Party No.2 and it discloses another complaint was lodged by complainant on 16.01.2015 and site was visited by the representative of the Opposite Party No.2 and attended the complaint on 28.01.2015. This document further reveals replacement of six more batteries and replaced six batteries were collected from the site. Ex.A8 is the site inspection report showing the date of inspection and date of installation as 22.06.2015 in response to a third complaint by the complainant. At the time of visit on 22.06.2015 two more batteries were replaced. It is significant to see that all the Delivery Note, site inspection reports job completion report are from the Opposite Party No.2 which is the local head of the Opposite Party No.1 manufacturer. So, it is evident from these documents that the original batteries purchased by the complainant have not supported the inverter to the desired level. For the same reason they were replaced by the sale service man of Opposite Party No.2.
- One of the defence taken by the Opposite Parties is that before and after replacement the complainant did not allow them to check the parameters which eventually which will take care of battery bank healthiness. At the same time it is not stated why their service representative replaced the batteries is not explained. The other defence of the Opposite Parties is battery bank was not suitable for the kind of load complainant required, generator set is not available and that UPS and Colour Photo print machine does not have proper efficiency and that battery bank is grossly inadequate and they should have installed atleast 65 AH Battery bank in the given case. Then in such a situation why Opposite Parties have replaced the batteries and they could not have informed the complainant above the said aspects in writing is not stated. One of the plea taken by the Opposite Parties is that they have replaced all the 20 batteries free of the cost. Replacement is not sufficient because during the problem faced by the complainant his business was affected. The totality of documents placed on record clearly proved that, the batteries manufactured by the Opposite Parties and purchased by the complainant were defective one. Accordingly point is answered.
- Point No.2: Since, batteries were defective from the stage of manufacturer itself there was deficiency of service and the complaint is entitled for refund of the cost of the batteries and interest thereon @ 12% p.a. Similarly since, the business of the complainant was affected on account of defective batteries sold to him he is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,000/- and further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this complaint. Accordingly, point is answered.
- Point No.3: In the result, the complainant is partly allowed directing Opposite Parties to refund Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a., from 30.09.2014 till the date of payment. The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for the business loss suffered by the complainant and they are also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the costs of the complaint.
For compliance time is 30 days from the date receipt of this order and otherwise they are liable to pay interest on the compensation amount also @ 12% p.a., from the date of complaint to the date of payment.
Typed by Typist, corrected and pronounced by us on this the 30th day of October, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
PW1 DW1
Sri S.Ashok Sri K.Saravanan
Exs. filed on behalf of the Complainant:
Exhibit: A-1 is copy of Sales Invoice dt.30.09.2014.
Exhibit: A-2 is copy of 24 months warranty card.
Exhibit: A-3 is copy of 24 months warranty card.
Exhibit: A-4 is copy of Delivery note dt.26.11.2014.
Exhibit: A-5 is copy of sale inspection report dt.27.11.2014.
Exhibit: A-6 is Job Card dt.29.11.2014.
Exhibit: A-7 is Job Card dt.16.01.2015.
Exhibit: A-8 is Site inspection report dt.22.06.2015.
Exhibit: A-9 is Job completion certificate dt.22.06.2015.
Exhibit: A-10 is Legal Notice dt.02.09.2015.
Exhibit: A-11 & 12 is Acknowledgments.
Exs. filed on behalf of the Opposite parties
Nil.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
kps
