Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/959/2012

Suresh Kamboj S/o Krishan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Paramount Batteries Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajiv Kaushik

17 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                           Complaint No… 959  of 2012.

                                                                                           Date of institution: 07.09.2012

                                                                                           Date of decision: 17.02.2016.

Suresh Kamboj aged about 49 years son of Krishan Lal, resident of H. No. 3-E, Shivpuri B, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar (HR).  

                                                                                                           …Complainant.

                                                 Versus

 

1. Paramount Batteries Pvt. Ltd., B/66 Sanjay Market, Sector-2 Rohini, Delhi.
2. Vidhi Enterprises, G-9, Narayan Complex, Civil Road, Rohtak, through its Proprietor/Partner.
3. Swammi Auto Electricals, near Waryam Singh Hospital, Jagadhri, Road, Yamuna Nagar.       

 

                                                                                                           …Respondents.  

                       

CORAM:          SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. Rajiv Kaushish, Advocate, counsel for complainant 

               Sh. Ramneek Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

               Sh. Ankit Sharma, Advocate, counsel for OP No.3.  

             

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Suresh Kamboj filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to make the payment of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation alongwith litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith upto date interest till its realization.

 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant purchased one battery model No. PT-160 Paramount A10C31933 from Shammi Auto Electricals i.e. Op No.3 who is authorized distributor and dealer of OPs No.1 &2 vide bill No. 3404 dated 17.4.2010 for a sum of Rs. 7000/-. As per terms and conditions of the company, the battery will be under warranty for a period of 2 ½ years and during this period if any fault occurs or if there is any manufacturing defect in the battery, the OP will remove the defect without any charges and in case the defect could not be removed in that eventuality the company will replace the battery as soon as possible. In the month of May 2012 when the backup of the battery started decreasing then he contacted the OP No.3, who received the battery and provided a standby battery to complainant and assured to send the same to the company for removal of defect. In the month of July 2012, the complainant received a message from OP No.3, that his battery had been received back from the company. On receiving the message, he approached the Op No.3, who installed the battery in the house of complainant but backup of the battery was intact as it was prior to sending the same to the OP Company. Thereafter, having no other alternative, the complainant served a legal notice dated 4.8.2012 upon the OPs No.1 & 2 through his counsel requesting the OPs to replace the said battery within a period of 15 days from the receipt of notice but they did pay any heed to his genuine request. Hence this complaint.     

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement separately. OPs No.1 & 2 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections that the complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and pleaded wrong facts in the complaint. The complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive just before the expiry of warranty period. The complaint has been filed just to create undue pressure upon the OPs No.1 & 2 to replace the battery and to abstract money from the OPs No.1 & 2 and on merit it has been submitted that as per complaint, the complainant purchased the battery on 17.4.2010 and thereafter no complaint was ever lodged to the OPs about the alleged defect before the expiry of more than 2 years. Had there been any manufacturing defect in that case the same would have occurred within few days of the use of battery but the OPs No.1 & 2 received the battery with the alleged complaint of manufacturing defect on 22.6.2012 i.e. after the expiry of 26 months from the date of alleged purchase. However, the OP No.1 received the battery for check up on 22.6.2012 and after the checking of the battery the same was returned on 2.7.2012 and the battery was duly checked up and the same was found working 2 ½ to 3 hours after the expiry of 26 months. As such, the battery is working properly and there is no defect in the same. Lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.   

4.                     OP No.3 filed its written statement by admitting the fact to the extent that the Op No.1 is manufacturer of Paramount Batteries and OP No.3 is authorized dealer of OP No.1. It is also admitted to the extent that the complainant purchased the battery vide bill No.3404 dated 17.4.2010. It has been further submitted that the complainant approached the OP No.3 with the battery and told that the backup of the battery had been decreased. The Op No.3 received the battery from complainant and provided him a service battery and battery had been sent to OP No.1 for removal of the defect as per instructions of Op No.1. It has been further submitted that after receiving the battery from the company, he immediately informed the complainant and installed the same in the house of complainant. It has been further submitted that the Op No.3 provided services satisfactorily so, the complainant should not have any grievance against the OP No.3. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.3 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as hand written slip as Annexure C-1, Bill of battery as Annexure C-2, Copy of legal notice dated 4.8.2012 as Annexure C-3, Postal receipts as Annexure C-4 & C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

6.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs failed to adduce any evidence, hence evidence of OPs was closed by court order dated 15.01.2016.

7.                     We have heard the counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the documents mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for the OPs reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

 8.                    It is admitted fact that the complainant purchased the battery vide invoice No. 3404 dated 17.4.2010 for a sum of Rs. 7000/- (Annexure C-2) from the OP No.3. It is not disputed that the battery in question was having warranty of 2 ½ years from the date of its purchased.  The complainant only took the plea that the backup of the battery started decreasing in the month of May 2012 and it was handed over to the OP No.3 for the removal of its defect and in the month of July 2012 the OP No.3 again installed the said battery after removing its defect but the backup of battery in question was hitherto.

9.                     From the perusal of file as well as documents placed on the file, it is evident that the complainant purchased the battery from OP No.3 on 17.4.2010 and the present complaint has been filed on 17.09.2012 i.e. near about after 2 years 5 months i.e. one month just prior to expiry of the alleged warranty of 2 ½ years. Even as per the version of the complainant the battery in question was working properly till June 2012 when the complainant handed over the battery in question to the Op No.3 for check up which was return on 2.7.2012 by OP No.3 after checking the same. As per version of Op No.3 the battery was duly checked up and the same was found working properly and after the expiry of 26 months, it was giving a regular back up of approximate 2 ½ hours to 3 hours. It has been further mentioned by OP No.3 that if a battery started to give back up of less than 1 hour in that case it is termed as that either the battery has become weaken or there is any some manufacturing defect but in this case as the battery was giving back up more than 2 to 3 hours, so, there was no any manufacturing defect in the said battery. Further more, the complainant neither produced any documentary evidence to prove that the battery in question remained defective after July 2012 nor any expert report that the battery was having any manufacturing defect and in the absence of these documentary evidence it cannot be presumed that the battery in question was having any manufacturing defect. The same view has been held in case titled as R.Baskar Versus D.N. Udani and others,  2006(3) CLT page 606 (National Commission) “ that Vehicle had been in use for one year and five months. It had run over 9808 Kms. difficult to believe that it is suffering from manufacturing defects. The vehicle was repaired by OPs and kept ready for delivery-Still the complainant refused, even test ride the vehicle, to take delivery. The complainant held only interested in refund of the amount- No jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission in dismissing the complaint of the petitioner”.    

10                     In view of the above noted circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case that the opposite parties are deficient in providing proper services to the complainant. Hence, the complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.  

Announced: 17.02.2016

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

                                                                                     

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.