Tripura

West Tripura

CC/41/2016

Dr. Amiya Kumar Pan. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Surela Battery Agency & Amara Raja Batteries Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

05 Oct 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC- 41 of 2016

            
Amiya Kumar Pan,
S/O- Late Radhashyam Pan,
College Tilla, Agartala,
P.S. East Agartala, West Tripura.         ....…...Complainant.

          VERSUS

M/S Surela Battery Agency,
Laxminarayan Bari Road Chowmuhani,
Agartala, West Tripura.

Amara Raja Batteries Ltd.,
Karakambadi, Tirupati,
P.O. Tirupati- 517520,
Andhra Pradesh.                .........Opposite parties.

 

      __________PRESENT__________

 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : Miss Rajashree Purkayastha 
                          Advocate.

For the O.Ps            : Sri Prabir Saha,
                      Sri Diptenu Debnath, 
                      Advocate.

    JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON: 05.10.16

J U D G M E N T

        This case arises on the petition filed by Dr. Amiya Kr. Pan U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case  in short is that he purchased a battery from O.P. No.1, M/S Surela Battery Agency on 30.08.13 on payment of Rs.20,800/-. O.P. No.1 issued the invoice and also warranty. As per warranty in case of defect found in the battery within 36 months  free replacement will be made. Within the warranty period the petitioner found defects in the battery and requested the O.P. No.1 for replacement. O.P. also sent E-mail to the manufacturer and O.P. No.2, the manufacturer informed that there franchisee service executive will attend the complaint. One person was sent from O.P. No.2, Amara Raja Batteries Ltd. but no service provided. Battery was not replaced. Petitioner did not get sufficient power from that battery as  the cells were not functioning so he filed this complaint claiming compensation Rs.4 lakhs.

        O.P. No.1 and 2 appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that the battery had no defect at all. It is inspected by service engineer and still it is working. O.P. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the claim. 

        On the basis of contention raised by the parties petitioner and O.P. following points cropped up for determination:
        (I) Whether a defective battery was sold out by the O.P. and it was not replaced during the warranty period?
        (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to replacement of battery and compensation?
    
        Petitioner produced the cash memo, warranty card, letters, E-mail copy, marked Exhibit- 1 Series.
        Petitioner also produced the statement on affidavit of petitioner.

        O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit  of  2 witnesses, Paritosh Debnath, another Supayan Datta Choudhury. Also produced one mail copy.

        On the basis of all the evidence on record we shall now determine the above points.

            Findings and Decisions:

        We have gone through the warranty card. As per the terms and conditions period of warranty is for 36 months. In case of any defect found free replacement of the battery is promised. In the event of complaint the customer will have to return the battery to any nearby authorized Amaron Centre. Authorized service facility is to be provided. Within warranty period Amaron Authorized service station will repair or replace the defective battery. The right to determine whether the battery needs repair or total replacement lies solely on the company. In this instant case battery was purchased on 30.05.13 as per invoice Exhibit- 1 Series. Petitioner complained about the defects of the battery on 26th October, 2015.  Complaint was given in writing within the warranty period. Company responded by mail and informed that franchise service O.P. No.2  will be provided. But actually  it was not provided.  

        Petitioner in the statement on affidavit stated that the battery started giving problem after few days of purchase. 2 chambers of the battery was not functioning and water level are not depleting. Due to this defect in water depleting sufficient power was not supplied at the load sheding period. In the warranty card it is clearly stated that water loss will happen during usage. But there was no water loss in the 2 chambers out of 4 chambers. From the evidence it is transpired that 50% power supply was available from the battery as 2 chambers were not  working. The Service Engineer, Supayan Datta Choudhury in his statement on affidavit stated that battery was serviceable. Everything was found O.K. In the cross examination he stated that he had given no written certificate to support that the battery was O.K. No water was poured by him. He has no specialization  in the battery service.   O.P.W 2  Paritosh Debnath is the seller of the battery. He admitted the sale of battery on payment of Rs.20,800/-. He denied  the manufacturing defects. However, he admitted that he received complaint about the non-functioning of 2 cells of the battery. Though he is the seller he is not in a position to provide any service. The battery had 4 chambers out of that cells 2 chambers were not functioning. Water level was not reducing. So, proper voltage was not available. For getting proper voltage and power electrolyte is to be continued. From the beginning electrolyte  level is not maintained. Water level is not reducing. As a result petitioner was not getting sufficient power and back up was not given from starting period. Electrolyte  level should be maintained as per level  indicator of the battery during installation. But from the date of installation it was not maintained. Matter was brought to the knowledge of the seller who could not provide service. When the matter was brought to the knowledge of manufacturer Amara Raja Batteries then franchise service engineer was sent. But the service engineer was negligent. He did not give proper service for repairing battery. Under such circumstances battery was required to be replaced but the company did not take any such step for replacement of the battery. This is deficiency of service by Amara Raja Batteries. Surela battery also did not take any step in this regard for replacement or repair. This is also deficiency of service  of Surela Battery Agency. 

        From all these evidence on record it is transpired that both the O.P.s did not give proper service for repairing or replacement of the battery within the warranty period of 36 months. Petitioner suffered from the date of purchase due to deficiency of service by the O.Ps. Petitioner therefore, is entitled to get  replacement of the battery and also compensation.

         We therefore, direct both the O.Ps to replace the battery and pay compensation amounting to Rs.15,000/- to the petitioner and also Rs.5000/- as cost of litigation, total Rs.20,000/-. 

        In view of our above findings both the points are decided in favour of the petitioner. We direct the O.P. to replace the battery and also pay compensation Rs.20,000/-. Both the O.P.s are jointly & severally liable to replace the battery & pay compensation Rs.20,000/-. The order is to be complied within 2 months otherwise the compensation amount will carry interest @9% P.A.               
         
                   Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.