DATE OF FILING- 3.4.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL-24.7.2014
O R D E R
Miss S.L.Pattnaik,President
The complainant alleges that he purchased one Battery of Exide make having Model No. Mega INVA 1500, BSL No.3KO 07375 and Receipt/Invoice No.R1/3126 on 1.1.2011 for an amount of Rs.11,000/-(Rupees eleven thousand) from Opposite Party No.2. It is further alleged by the complainant that the said battery subsequently after use found malfunctioning. The complainant informed to the Opposite Parties several times for its repair or replacement. But the Opposite Parties did not look into the matter. Although, the Opposite Party orally agreed to refund the price of the battery but it did not consider it. A legal notice was served upon the Opposite Parties which was received by them on 5.12.2012, but the Opposite Parties remained callous without replying to the above notice. When all his effort did not yield any result, he files this consumer complaint with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay him compensation of Rs.30,000/- as a whole together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum towards the cost of the battery and mental agony caused to him due to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.
-2-
2 The Opposite Party No.1 has represented through its learned counsel and filed written version. The Opposite Party No.2 did not appear despite receipt of notice of the Forum for which the Opposite Party No.2 was set ex-parte on 5.2.2014.
The Opposite Party No.1 in its written statement has prima-facie raised objection regarding maintainability of the case on the ground of cause of action and jurisdiction. However, on the merit of the case, it is submitted that the battery under dispute was brought to him through Opposite Party No.2 on discharged condition on 21.9.2012. On examination by the Service Engineer, it was noticed that the battery was not charging up to the minimum level rather deep discharged for which the claim was rejected on the ground of Deep Discharge. Subsequently, the same was communicated to Opposite Party No.2. It is further stated that the transaction with the Opposite Party No.2 is principal to principal basis and the Opposite Party No.2 is to sell the battery to their own customers. They are not liable since the claim of the complainant violates the basic terms and conditions of warranty. It is submitted that there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part to compensate the complainant as claimed and prayed for dismissal of the case in limine.
3. On the date of hearing both the parties are present. Heard the case from both the sides and perused the case record and written arguments filed by both the parties. It is the case of the complainant that the battery purchased by him was found defective which was admittedly brought to the Opposite Party No.1 on 21.9.2012. The battery was purchased on 1.1.2011 and the defect was perceived on 21.9.2012. On perusal of Warranty Card supplied by Opposite Party No.1, it reveals that the said battery was having warranty for 36 months. It is a fact that the battery was found malfunctioning during the period of warranty in force and it was brought to the Opposite Party No.1 during such warranty period. The Opposite Party No.1 instead of repairing the same tried to avoid their liability shifted the burden upon complainant that the battery is deep discharged due to misuse. On the other hand, it is argued by the advocate for the complainant that soon after the battery found defective it was brought for check up since the inverter charged automatically depending upon electric power goes on or off. Therefore, it is not in the hands of the complainant to charge or discharge the battery.
4- From the above facts, it is crystal clear that the battery was found defective within the period of warranty and as per the terms and conditions of the warranty the Opposite Parties are required to either repair or replace the same at the earliest possible time in order to avoid further harassment or trouble to the complainant. Denial or
-3-
rejection on a mere ground of discharge of battery made by the Opposite Party No.1 is clearly manifested to be the act of unfair trade practice adopted by Opposite Party No.1. Obviously, the complainant had purchased the battery of such a reputed company having good will in the market to get trouble free service. But all his hope and aspiration has become marred due to rejection of his genuine claim. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Parties are liable to replace the battery with a new one of having equal power and same model and hand over the same to the complainant.
6- In view of the foregoing findings, we allow the case of the complainant on contest against Opposite Party No.1 and ex-parte against Opposite Party No.2. We direct the Opposite Parties to replace the Exide Battery with a new one having equal power and same model free from any defect to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. At the same time, the complainant is directed to return the defective Exide Battery bearing BSL No.3KO 07375 to the Opposite Parties on receipt of the new battery as ordered above on proper receipt. Besides the above we award a sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand) towards cost of litigation in favour of the complainant to be paid by Opposite Parties within the above period. The case is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 24th day of July,2014
I AGREE(MEMBER) I AGREE(MEMBER) PRESIDENT
(Dr.N.Tuna Sahu) (Smt.M.Pradhan) (Miss S.L.Pattnaik)
