DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.
CC.No.367 of 03-08-2012
Decided on 21-12-2012
Gurdev Singh, aged about 55 years s/o Sh.Gurbachan Singh r/o Vill. Adampura, District Bathinda, proprietor of Brar Medical Hall, Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda.
........Complainant
Versus
1.Okaya Power Ltd., -7, Udyog Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi-110041, through its Managing Director.
2.M.D Electronics, Brar Market, Bhagta Bhai Ka, Tehsil Phul, District Bathinda, through its proprietor Maha Dev.
3. Luxmi Enterprises, Mehna Marg near old Bus Stand, Bathinda; through its proprietor/partner.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.
Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the Complainant: Sh.Puneet Garg, counsel for complainant.
For Opposite parties: Sh.H.S Sidhu, counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh.Amit Kumar, counsel for opposite party No2.
Opposite party No.3 ex-parte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act'). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased Okaya Japanese Battery model 30M SL 500T, serial No.G-2215138394 manufactured by the opposite party No.1, from the opposite party No.2 against cash price of Rs.9000/- vide retail invoice No.2178 dated 19.3.2010 on 19.3.2010 for 2 years warranty from the date of its purchase. The said battery starting giving problem within its warranty period. The complainant informed the opposite party No.2 about the problem in the said battery. The opposite party No.2 advised the complainant to approach the opposite party No.3 being the distributor of the opposite party No.1. The complainant lodged a complaint No.15835 dated 10.3.2012 with the opposite party No.3 and in the test report of the said battery they wrongly mentioned 'Test Pass' and informed him that the said battery does not have any defect. Under bonafide belief the complainant took the said battery back to his house but the same did not function properly and he again approached the opposite party No.3 and lodged a complaint vide claim form No.311 and got deposited the said battery. The opposite party No.3 informed that the said battery was within the warranty period when it was brought to them for repairs and now it is out of warranty. Till date the said battery is in the possession of the opposite party No.3. The complainant visited again and again the opposite party No.3 and requested them to replace the said battery but their officials did not pay any heed to his requests. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to replace the said defective battery with new one of same model or in the alternative to refund the sale price of the same alongwith interest, cost and compensation.
2. Notice was sent to the opposite parties. The opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer as he has been running the said battery in Medical Hall. The opposite party No.1 has checked the 2 years old battery of the complainant on the receipt of the complaint and found 3rd cell week with 35 minutes Back Up with full load of 400 watts. The opposite party No.1 further pleaded that the 'Unspecific Trouble' beyond the scope of the understanding and the word 'Desired Service' has no definition. The complainant used the said battery without any complaint for almost full warranty period and at the fag end of the warranty period he became dishonest and played the foul game by way of the present complaint.
3. The opposite party No.2 after appearing before this Forum has filed its separate written statement and pleaded that they have clearly informed the complainant that the said battery is to be provided only by the company and the same is also mentioned in the bill/invoice regarding the sale of the same and they have nothing to do with providing any guarantee/warranty. The complainant approached the opposite party No.2 and complaint regarding the defect in the said battery and they told him that the warranty is to be provided by the opposite party No.3 on behalf of the opposite party No.1. Accordingly, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3.
4. Sh.Gourav Seth appeared in person on behalf of the opposite party No.3 on dated 7.9.2012 and 14.9.2012 but thereafter none appeared on behalf of the opposite party No.3. Hence ex-parte proceedings are taken against the opposite party No.3.
5. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.
6. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused
7. The complainant has purchased Okaya Japanese Battery model 30M SL 500T, serial No.G-2215138394 manufactured by the opposite party No.1, from the opposite party No.2 against cash price of Rs.9000/- vide retail invoice No.2178 dated 19.3.2010 on 19.3.2010 for 2 years warranty from the date of its purchase.
8. The submissions of the complainant are that the said battery became defective during the warranty period. The said battery sent for the test vide BTRF (Battery Test Replacement Form) on dated 10.3.2012 vide IR No.15835. The said battery was checked on 400 Watts; Back Up Time:- 2 hours 5 minutes, in this job sheet dated 10.3.2012 Ex.C2 in the final result it has been specifically mentioned that the battery has passed the test, nothing has been written in the Engg. Observation.
9. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the
complainant has purchased the said battery on 19.3.2010. The warranty of 2 years i.e. 36 months has been given on the said battery as per Ex.C5. The said battery was checked on 10.3.2012 within the warranty period. In Ex.C1 the warranty date 18.3.2012 is specifically mentioned. The job sheet dated 10.3.2012 Ex.C2 shows that the test of the said battery was passed on 10.3.2012. Thereafter the defect again occurred in the said battery and the same was sent for the test vide BTRF (Battery Test Replacement Form) on dated 17.4.2012 vide IR No.12388. The said battery was checked on 400 Watts; Back Up Time:- 35 minutes, in this job sheet dated 17.4.2012 Ex.C4 in the final result in remarks column it has been specifically mentioned that 'Test Failed'. The said battery has failed the test as it has been given the specific observation by the Engineer:-
'Engg.Observation (write the fault) 1. Cell Week No.3rd 2. Low Backup.......3. Heat Seal Leakage. 4 Not Pickup Charge 5. Intercell Connection Loose 6. Self Discharge 7. Deep Discharge 8. Battery Budge/Blast 9. Any others............'
A further perusal of documents shows that the complainant has purchased the said battery on 19.3.2010. The test of the said battery was passed on 10.3.2012 but failed on 17.4.2012. On 17.4.2012 the said battery was already out of warranty.
10. As discussed above as the said battery was out of warranty on 17.4.2012 as such the complainant is not entitled either to the replacement or the refund the price of the said battery as he has already used the same till the warranty period that has been mentioned till 18.3.2012 in Ex.C1.
11. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above this complaint fails as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and dismissed without any order as to cost.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced in open Forum:-
21-12-2012
Vikramjit Kaur Soni
President
Sukhwinder Kaur
Member
