Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

268/2010

R.Shyamsundar - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Vijaya Value Electric (p) Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

19 Nov 2015

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   29.06. 2010

                                                                        Date of Order :   19.11.2015.

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI(SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM M.A.M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

                 DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO.268/2010

             THUSDAY THIS  19^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER  2015     

 

R.Shyamsundar,

“Hall Towers”,

E28/33, Halls Towers,

Egmore, Chennai 600 008.                              ..Complainant

                                          

                                            ..Vs..

 

M/s.Vijay Value Electric (P)Ltd.,

Rep. by the Proprietor,

10,11 Main Road,

Raja Annamalaipuram,

Chennai 600 028.                                              ..Opposite party.  

 

 

For the Complainant                 :   Party in person

 

For the Opposite party              :    M/s. K. Krishnamoorthy & another.

 

        This complaint is being filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for a direction to the opposite party  to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- as damages  and also to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/ towards cost of the batteries and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony  and deficiency of service and to pay cost of this complaint  to the complainant.

ORDER

 

THIRU. B. RAMALINGAM PRESIDENT

         

1.The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

  The complainant has purchased an Electric Scooter, Model Glide Super-25 from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.26,000/-.   From the date of purchase the vehicle had steering wobble problem which was never rectified, further the batteries failed totally within eight months of purchase.   The complainant has further stated that the battery supplied with the scooter had not properly functioning and not fully charged  as assured by the opposite party to run the vehicle for 75 kms range from the beginning of the purchase of the vehicle.  The complainant being an Electric Engineer by qualification has followed the instructions given by the opposite party and the manual mentioned instructions supplied at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the battery was not fully charged and due to the same mileage problem was occurred and the said batteries were bulged.    The above defect of the battery is due to the defective charger provided for the said battery as well as manufacturing defect of the said battery, as such the opposite party despite of his request not come forward to replace the battery by new one, since the batteries have failed to function properly even within the period of warranty.   As such the opposite party had committed deficiency of service and which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint.         

Written version of   opposite party is  as follows:-

2.     It denies all the averments and allegation contained in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   As far as the battery of the scooter the warranty is given for only six months.   The complainant has brought the vehicle for service to the opposite party on 20.1.2009 with the complaints of the front wheel wobbling and mileage problem the said front wheel wobbling defects was rectified and the battery attached with scooter are found bulged due to the overcharging of the battery by the complainant without following the instructions mentioned in the manual  given by the opposite party at the time of purchase of the said vehicle.   With regard to the bulging battery i.e. battery problem the opposite party had told the complainant that they would replace the battery by paying necessary cost by the complainant and further six months time of warranty will be extended for battery, despite to the said advice the complainant has not come forward to replace the battery on the payment of cost for which the opposite party is not liable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the problem of bulging of battery are due to overcharging of the said battery only for which the opposite party is not responsible and it is not due to manufacturing defect of the battery.   Hence the compliant is liable to be dismissed.

3.   Complainant has filed his Proof affidavit and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 were marked on the side of the complainant.   Opposite party has filed his proof affidavit and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 filed on the side of the opposite party. 

4.      The points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?

 

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?  

5.      POINTS 1 & 2 :

Perused the complaint  filed by the complainant, written version filed by the  opposite party, proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the  opposite party and  Ex.A1 to Ex.A12  filed on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 filed on the side of the opposite party and also considered the both side arguments.

6.     It is admitted fact that the opposite party is the dealer from whom the complainant has purchased an Electric Scooter, Model Glide Super-25 as per invoice Ex.A1.  The warranty card and the instructions for the use of the said vehicle and charging of batteries which were provided by the opposite party to the complainant is filed as Ex.A2 to Ex.A6.  As per the warranty card Ex.A2 as per condition -1 mentioned in the warranty card is that “ Warranty for Vijaya Glide 25 Super is for a period of 12 months from the date of sale.  For the batteries installed in the scooter, warranty will be for a period of six months”.

7.     The complainant has  raised main grievance in the complaint that the battery supplied with the scooter was not properly functioning and not fully charged  as assured by the opposite party to run the vehicle for 75 kms range from the beginning of the purchase of the vehicle.  The complainant being an Electric Engineer by qualification has followed the instructions given by the opposite party and the manual mentioned instructions supplied at the time of purchase of the vehicle, the battery was not fully charged and due to the same mileage problem was occurred and the said batteries were bulged.    The above defect of the battery is due to the defective charger provided for the said battery as well as manufacturing defect of the said battery, as such the opposite party despite of his request not come forward to replace the battery by new one, since the batteries have failed to function properly even within the period of warranty. 

8.     Whereas the opposite party has resisted the said complaint stating that as far as the battery of the scooter the warranty is given for only six months.   The complainant has brought the vehicle for service to the opposite party on 20.1.2009 with the complaints of the front wheel wobbling and mileage problem the said front wheel wobbling defects was rectified and the battery attached with scooter are found bulged due to the overcharging of the battery  by the complainant without following the instructions mentioned in the manual  given by the opposite party at the time of purchase of the said vehicle.   With regard to the bulging battery i.e. battery problem the opposite party had told the complainant that they would replace the battery by paying necessary cost  by the complainant and further six months time of warranty will be extended for battery, despite to the said advice the complainant has not come forward to replace the battery on the payment of cost for which the opposite party is not liable and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the problem of bulging of battery are due to overcharging of the said battery only for which the opposite party is not responsible and it is not due to manufacturing defect of the battery, since no such complaint from other customers have received so far by the opposite party.

9.     The complainant has contended that the reason stated by the opposite party for bulging of battery is due to overcharging is not correct, since as per the instructions of maintenance of battery mentioned in the manual given at the time of purchase of vehicle by hte opposite party to the complainant i.e. Ex.A3 in para-2 mentioned is as follows: 

“ The charger will consume only the required power from your mains that is required to top up the battery.  Even if the charger is kept on for more hours, it will not consume more units from your mains, hence there is no wastage of current.”   

Further in the said manual under the topic of battery and charging mentioned in Ex.A4 para-3 it is mentioned as follows: 

        “Once the battery voltage reaches 48V DC the green light on the charger will glow.  However as recommended by the manufacturers of the battery, you are advised to keep the charger in “on” position for two more hours before switching it ‘off ’.   By doing this you get maximum range per charge of the vehicle. “

Again Ex.A5 the special instructions contains in the manual para-1 read as follows:

        “Daily charge the battery at least 5 to 6 hours.  (i.e. Till the green light glows on the charger) The charging time can be extended up to 2 hours after the green light appears. 

The complainant referring the above said instructions mentioned in the manual has contended that as per the above instructions the battery has to be charged on the basis of the indicator mentioned in the charger till the green light appears showing the battery was charged fully and also charging of battery can continue to another two hours even after appearance of green light in the charging.  Accordingly the complainant has charged the battery as per the above said instructions if the charger provided for charging battery in the scooter is in proper quality the bulging of battery may not occurred so that the defect may be due to the under quality charger provided for the charging of the battery in the scooter would be the main cause for bulging of battery which is due to manufacturing defect of the said battery and the accessories provided in the scooter for which the opposite party is responsible is acceptable.  As per the complainant  the said vehicle was not giving proper mileage from the date of purchase  and the job sheet issued by the opposite party for the service of the said vehicle dated 20.1.2009 Ex.B1 itself proves that the said vehicle was attended by the opposite party for service with complaint of front wheel wobbling and mileage problem and also there is mentioning of details of service done labour charges etc. it is mentioned that “all the batteries are found bulged inform to customers.”   Therefore it is admissible that the said battery in the scooter are not functioning properly which caused mileage problem within six months period from the date of purchase of the vehicle and the said vehicle was attended by the opposite party for service on 20.1.2009 i.e. immediately after the end of the six months i.e warranty period the battery found bulged.  Therefore we are of the considered view that the submission made by the complainant that the battery of the said scooter and charger provided for the same are defective within the warranty period as such the opposite party is liable to replace the said battery  as per warranty is acceptable. 

10.    Contrary to this on the date of service mentioned in job sheet Ex.B1, dated 20.12009 the battery are found belated, as such the warranty period expired and the opposite party is not liable to replace the said battery at the free of cost is not acceptable.  Such act of opposite party demanding cost for replacing the battery from the complainant will amount to deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant in using the vehicle is also acceptable.   Contrary to this the contention raised by the opposite party that the said battery bulged due to overcharging which is not due to manufacturing defect and the opposite party is not liable to replace the battery as sought for by the complainant are all not sustainable.   Therefore we are of the considered view that the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,200/- as the battery cost of the relevant period and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as just and reasonable compensation and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as litigation charges to the complainant and accordingly the points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.

           In the result, the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.7,200/- (Rupees Seven thousand and two hundred only) as battery cost and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five thousand  only) towards litigation charges to the complainant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the  amounts of (Rs.7200/- & Rs.10,000/) shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order  passed till the date of realization.   

          Dictated to the Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 19^th   day of November   2015.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents :

Ex.A1-  30.4.2008 - Copy of invoice.

Ex.A2- 30.4.2008  - Copy of warranty registration card.

Ex.A3-         -       - Copy of Battery Care card.

Ex.A4-         -       - Copy of Battery and charging instructions.

Ex.A5-         -       - Copy of Special instructions.

Ex.A6-         -       - Copy of instructions.

Ex.A7-         -      - Copy of photos damaged batteries and Chinese origin

                             Of bike.

Ex.A8- 6.2.2009    - Copy of letter sent by the complainant to opposite party

                             by Courier.

Ex.A9- 10.8.2009  - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A10- 14.10.2009 – Copy of reply notice.

Ex.A11-       -       -  Copy of Technical Manual.

 

Opposite party’s side  documents:

 

 

Ex.B1- 20.1.2009  - Copy of job card.

Ex.B2- 14.10.2009 – Copy of reply notice.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.