DATE OF DISPOSAL: 27.05.2024.
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. The complainant’s son purchased a battery product of the Exide named manufacturer on dated 20.03.2020 by payment of cash amount of Rs.9000/- from the O.P.No.1 with capacity of 100AH of Exide brand and supplied a invoice and warranty card. The battery was functioning properly from the date of purchase i.e. 20.03.2020 till 19.09.2021 (18 months), but on dated 20.09.2021 onwards the battery created problem to the complainant by stopped functioning properly. The complainant contacted to the O.P.No.1 for checking and resolution to any defects in the battery. The O.P.No.1 checked properly by instructing to the complainant to surrender the battery to him for replacement with new battery by claiming of warranty provided by the manufacturer through distributor and trader from the supplier/distributor i.e. from the O.P.No.2 and he generated a complain to the manufacturer through “All Tech Auto Electricals”. After 4 weeks of the generated complain by the O.P.No.1 through All Tech Auto Electricals, he did not communicated to the complainant for the status report thereby the complainant inquired by visiting to the O.P.No.1 for the reason of delay service and status report thereafter the O.P.No.1 instructed to pay extra 75% to avail new battery of maximum retail price to get the new battery to discounting 25% of the new battery from MRP. The complainant sought information by oral from the O.P.No.1 for detail of report for generated the complain, but the O.P.No.1 failed to supply the information sought by the complainant and he orally instructed to pay extra Rs.1000/- to get well condition battery with same capacity without any warranty will be involved in the battery, if the option chosen by the complainant. The complainant did not agree and not chosen the option supplied by the O.P.No.1 by oral instruction of him for extra payment of Rs.1000/- to get the well working condition battery without any warranty involve in the said battery and he requested to return the surrendered battery under the O.P.No.1. Thereafter the O.P.No.1 handed over the battery to the complainant which he was surrendered under the O.P.No.1 for warranty service claim. The purchased battery was clearly mentioned by printed sticker in the battery that the battery warranty is 36 months i.e. 18 months free of cost replacement and prorates service from 19 months- 36 months in warranty. After receipt of the battery by the complainant from the O.P.No.1 he raised the complain by generating the complain number by contacting to the care of the O.P.No.2 by the complaint No. 7509983 dated 12.10.2022 for instant visit by the technician in door step within 48 hours and the complainant was waiting for the technician visit from the O.P.No.2. But neither the technician of the O.P.No.2 visited to the complainant’s residing house to check the non-functioning of faulty battery nor informed by telecom. Further the complain registered online complain No. 2519907 dated 8.11.2022 to the manufacturer for checking and resolution through their technician. But neither any technician form the O.P.No.2 visited the door-step of the complainant nor recommended any information to do for amicable solutions. Accordingly the complainant contacted to care team over phone to know the status for delay service. Thereafter the complainant came to know that the complaint was closed stated by the care team of the O.P.No.2. Hence the complaint was closed from their ends without informing to the complainant even without visiting to the complainant door step contravene under the law without providing service. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.P.No.1 to pay cost of amount Rs.25,000/- for delayed time without providing service and illegal method of adoption of service by grabbing of amount from the complainant and from the manufacturer for own benefit without supplying adequate service to the complainant as a customer, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. The Commission admitted the case and issued notice to the Opposite Parties.
4. The O.P.No.2 filed written version through his advocate. It is stated that the O.P.No.2 is hereinafter referred to as answering O.P. for the brevity of the Commission. The Chief Executive Officer of Exide Industries Limited as mentioned in the complaint under reply were in no way involved in the day to day affairs of the company, hence the naming of the Chief Executive Officer of the company in the instant complaint under reply, are unwarranted, uncalled for and an art of malafide. On this ground alone the instant complaint ought to be dismissed. The O.P.No.1 in the complaint is “Narayani Battery” which is a separate and independent legal entity and there is no agent principal relationship between the answering O.P. and O.P.No.1. The O.P. has always strived for the utmost satisfaction of customer; however the O.P. never has any knowledge of the problem in battery purchased by the complainant. The battery was malfunctioning, had the battery been produced before the answering O.P. the answering O.P. would have taken necessary steps for the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant has alleged in the complaint petition that he purchased a battery for his inverter from O.P.No.1 on 20.03.2020. The complainant has alleged that the battery is covered under a warranty period of 36 months on pro-rate basis, however, the said battery started showing problems in 20th September, 2021 only and when the complainant approached the O.P.No.1 which is not a registered dealer of the answering O.P. It is submitted that the complaint number which was created bearing complaint No. 7509983 and online complain no. 2519907 dated 8.11.2022 are fake documents and has no relation whatsoever with the answering O.P. No complaint whatsoever was ever lodged with the answering O.P. as alleged or at all. The complainant is put to strict proof of same. As per the records of the answering O.P., there does not exist any such complaint lodged by the complainant. It is submitted before this Ld. Commission that a direction be passed upon the complainant to produce the battery in question before the authorized service center of the answering O.P. for inspection and assessing warranty period. After inspection, if it is found that the battery has inherent manufacturing defect and the same is under the warranty period, the O.P. shall replace the same free of costs.
5. On the date of hearing the advocate for the complainant and O.P.No.2 are present. The Commission perused the complaint petition, written version, evidence on affidavit and written argument at length.
On analysis of the evidences submitted by both parties, it is manifest that the O.Ps contradicts the term of the contract under warranty conditions demanding to the complainant to pay 75% of the M.R.P. to supply a new battery under 18 months prorate basis. The terms of the contract have to be construed strictly without altering the nature of the contract as it may affect the contests of parties adversely.
In view of the principle of law laid down in Polymat India Private Limited & Another versus National Insurance Company Limited and ors reported in AIR 2005 S.C. 286 the Commission allowed the complaint partly.
Resultantly, the Opposite Parties are directed to replace the battery of the complainant on the basis of 18-21 months prorate basis together with directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 45 days of receipt of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the Order, the Complainant is at liberty to recover the entire dues with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till its actual date of realization and rights to take appropriate steps in accordance to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 27.05.2024.
