D.O.F. 31.01.2005 D.O.O. 25.04.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member Dated this the 25th day of April, 2011 O.P.No.29/2005 T. Ramakrishnan, S/o. Late T.T. Raman, Room No.152, Stadium Complex, : Complainant Kannur – 1. (Rep. by Advocate Priya P.M.) 1. M/s. Cannanore Motor Company, Nr. Caltex Junction, Kannur. 2. Amara Raja Batteries Ltd., : Opposite Parties Renigunta, Cuddapah Road, Karakampadi, Tirupati- 517 520, Andhra Pradesh (Rep. by Adv. N.C. James) O R D E R Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 8000 as cost of the two batteries with 12% interest from 01.01.2004 till the date of payment with ` 10,000 as compensation and cost. The case of the complainant is that he had purchased two Amaron batteries during 2003, February with two years warranty for an amount of ` 8000. The complainant had purchased the batteries believing the words of the opposite parties that the batteries have 240 watts capacity and will work continuously for 6 hours, even after the warranty period of two years. During March, 2003 the complainant realized that the batteries can work hardly for 45 minutes continuously. So the opposite parties came and checked the batteries as per the information of the complainant, and they did some work on this and promised that it will work continuously for a period of 6 hours. They also informed that the batteries having manufacturing defects and will either rectified or replaced by them. But they have not turned up even after repeated requests and during July, 2003 there was electricity failure and it did not worked more than 45 minutes. But they have not turn up inspite of several intimation. The complainant got informationfrom a technician that the batteries have manufacturing defects. During December, 2003, the complainant went to the shop of 1st opposite party they put lame excuses as usual. Later the opposite parties took the battery from the office of the complainant along with all papers including the invoices, warranty cards etc relating to the two batteries. But they did not replace or return the battery and one of the battery is still with the opposite party. So the complainant was constrained to purchase a similar battery for his office by paying ` 6500 on 07.06.2004. So the complainant want refund of cost of these batteries. The batteries were purchased for uninterrupted electricity supply through the invertors at the office and the residence of the complainant. In the residence of the complainant, his wife has a clinic which also suffered a lot due to very poor functioning of the battery. So the complainant sustained huge monetary loss. Hence this complaint. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum, both opposite parties appeared and filed their version admitting that the complainant had purchased two batteries made by 2nd opposite party but contended that the batteries have only one year warranty. The battery manufactured by 2nd opposite party has good quality and sufficient warranty. The opposite parties have never promised to replace the battery. The damage caused to the battery of the complainant may due to mishandling and lack of proper recharging and proper maintenance of the batteries are necessary for getting long life even after the guaranty period. The life of the battery is also depend upon the quality of inverter used. The opposite parties denies the allegation of the complainant that they have taken back the battery from the office of the complainant along with purchase bill and other papers of the battery. The opposite parties are not liable to compensate the complainant, since the warranty period of the battery purchased by the complainant is already over in February, 2003 itself and hence the complainant is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration. 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost? The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and DW1 and Exts. C1, B1 and B2. The complainant’s case is that he had purchased from 1st opposite party two Amaron batteries made by 2nd opposite party by paying an amount of ` 8000 during February, 2003 under the impression that it has 240 watts capacity and will work continuously for 6 hours. In order to prove his case the C1 report was maked and the expert commission was examined as PW1. The opposite party was also examined as DW1 and documents B1 and B2 are marked. Eventhough the complainant contended that he had purchased two Ameron batteries having two years warranty during February, 2003 from 1st opposite party which is manufactured by 2nd opposite party he has not produced any documents to prove this. According to him all the documents, pertaining to the batteries were taken away by the opposite party, made believe him that it was to issue the 2nd opposite party’s office at Thirupathi for warranty benefits. But the complainant has not produced any receipts to this effect. 1st opposite party contended that the complainant has not purchased the batteries from 1st opposite party and the batteries manufactured by 2nd opposite party has only one year warranty. Moreover according to opposite party the complainant has used the batteries improperly and not maintained it correctly and had used the inverter having more capacities than that the batteries can afford. But inorder to disprove this contention raised by opposite party the complainant has not produced any documents pertaining to the inverter in order to show that the inverter used is suitable for the batteries. The commissioner inspected the batteries on 13.03.2007 ie after 4 years from the alleged date of purchase. The commissioner reported that the battery inspected by him is Amaron Shield Battery having Serial No. 1650522289839 and the battery is in working condition and the present capacity of the battery is approximately less than 20 Wt. According to the commissioner the efficiency of battery may come down after long usage and the working hours of the battery is depends on the load connected to the battery, any problem encountered on inverter circuit may effect the back up time of battery, long usage, and sufficient charging made on prior to usage etc. The Commissioner opined that the reason for functioning for only 45 minutes at the time of purchasing may be due to the above stated reason. The commissioner further reported that in the testing of the battery, it is found that it works with the current output of 5 to 6 Ampere for a period of 2 to 3 hours and the ampere depends on the number of devices. The Commissioner deposed before the Forum that “]cn-tim-[-\-k-a-b¯v _mädn 20 AH Bbn-cp-¶p. Maximum charging \v tijT In«n-b-Xm-Wv. 20 AH Hcp inverter\v D]-tbm-Kn-¨m hfsc Ipd¨v am{Xta work sN¿p-I-bp-Åq. 12 Volt D]-I-c-WT connect sNbvXn-«mWv testingþ aq¶p aWn-¡q-tdm-fT I¯n-b-Xv. Inverter 12 Volt s\ 230 Volt B¡p¶ D]-I-c-W-am-Wv. km[m-cW Hcp computer system connect sNbvXm 30 an\n-än Xmsg am{Xta {]hÀ¯n-¡p-I-bp-Åq.” So from the above discussion it is seen that the commissioner made clear that the working of the battery is depend upon the connected load of devices. But the complainant has not produced any documents to prove that the battery purchased was of 240 walls and had connected only a limited load suitable to the capacity of the battery or affordable to the battery. So in the absence of the evidence to show the connected loard we are not in a position to conclude that the battery is defective. Moreover the complainant has not produced any document to prove that the battery has two year warranty. So the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case beyond doubt and hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly. In the result the complaint dismissed. No cost. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant Nil Exhibits for the opposite parties B1. Authorisation letter. B2. Terms and conditions of warranty. Exhibits for the Court C1. Report of Inspection. Witness examined for the complainant PW1. K. Basheer Witness examined for opposite party DW1. Laliman K.V. /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
