| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA CC No.151 of 04-06-2018 Decided on: 16-06-2023 Jaspal Singh aged about 67 years S/o Bahal Singh R/o Village Mehma Sarja Near Kothe Natha Singh, Gonianan, District Bathinda (Punjab). ........Complainant Versus Proprietor Pasco Batteries, Vishkarrna Motor Market, Barnala Bye Pass Road, Bathinda. Exide Industries Ltd. c/o 8/42 Kirti Nagar Industrial Area. New Delhi 110015 through its MD
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM:- Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member Present:- For the complainant : Sh.Bharat Bhushan, Advocate. For opposite party No.1 : Sh.Sushant Sharma, Advocate. For opposite party No.2 : Sh.Gurinder Singh, Advocate. ORDER Lalit Mohan Dogra, President The complainant Jaspal Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before this Forum (Now Commission) against Proprietor Pasco Batteries and another (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly the facts of the complaint as pleaded by the complainant are that on the assurance of opposite party No.1, the complainant purchased two batteries for Rs.35,000/- make Leoman Battery 180 AH, Controller make Sukarn and inverter make Luminous with two years guarantee. Opposite party No.1 did not issue original bill, rather it wrote the price of the batteries, controller and inverter on its letter pad. It is alleged that after two days, the complainant approached opposite party No.1 and demanded the original bill, but to no avail. At last on 18.6.2016, opposite party No.1 issued a bill of Rs.12,500/- only. The complainant raised an objection with opposite party No.1, it told him that due to some income tax and sales tax problem, it can not issue bill of Rs.35,000/-. Opposite party No.1 assured the complainant if any defect/problem occurs, it would remove the same within short time. It is further alleged that opposite party No.1 issued bill dated 18.6.2016 in which the battery has been shown of Exide. During the guarantee/warrantee period i.e. about 7 months from the date of purchase of items, the inverter became out of order. The complainant many times visted opposite party No.1, it sent a mechanic. After checking the inverter, opposite party No.1 replaced the battery. After some time, the inverter again became out of order. Opposite party No.1 repaired the inverter and now in the month of January 2018, the inverter became again defective. The complainant contacted opposite party No.1, but to no effect. It is further alleged that the complainant many times visited opposite party No.1, it sent a mechanic and after checking the inverter, the mechanic took the batteries. Opposite party No.1 promised the complainant to replace the batteries within few days as at that time, new batteries were not available with it. It is further alleged that opposite party No.1 has not replaced the defective batteries with new one till date despite several visits of the complainant. The complainant got served a registered notice dated 22.3.2018 and dated 10.5.2018 to opposite parties, but to no effect. Opposite party No.2 did not take any action against opposite party No.1 that shows opposite party No.2 is also connivance with opposite party No.1. As such, there is deficiency in service on part of opposite parties for not removig the defect. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to opposite parties to repair/replace the defective batteries or to refund their price alongwith interest and to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/- for harassment etc and to pay cost. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and raised legal objections that the complainant has no locus-standi and cause-of-action to file the complaint against it. The complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands, rather he has intentionally concealed the material facts from this Forum. As such, he is not entitled to any relief from this Forum. The complicated questions of law and facts are involved in this case. They can only be decided by leading elaborate oral and documentary evidence that can be done only in civil court. As such, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain, try and decide the complaint. Further legal objections are that in this case, the complainant has levelled allegation that he has purchased two batteries of 'Leoman Battery 180 AH' and opposite party No.1 has issued bill dated 18.6.2016 by mentioning the make of the Battery as 'Exide'. In fact, the complainant has not purchased any battery of any make from opposite party No.1, rather he has purchased only Inverter of Exide Make and a Solar Controller of Sukam Make from opposite party No.1. As such, there is a dispute as to whether the complainant has purchased any battery from opposite party No.1 or not. The dispute neither falls within the provisions of 'Act'. This Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the complaint. The complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his act and conduct. The complaint does not conform the provisions of 'Act'. The complaint is hopelessly time barred. The complainant is not 'consumer' of opposite party No.1 with respect to purchase of batteries as he has not purchased any battery of any make from opposite party No.1. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant approached opposite party No.1 in the month of May 2016. On asking of the complainant, opposite party No.1 issued quotation with respect to Leomax Battery, Luminous Inverter, Sukam Controller and Batteries of various Make/s to the complainant on 9.5.2016. Opposite party No.1 denied that it asked the complainant that the companies are giving guarantee of two years for the said products. The rough price tag (quotation) of different types of batteries, inverters and controllers was given to the complainant. It is made clear that the manufacturing company is providing only warranty and not guarantee of any product. Opposite party No.1 denied that the complainant has purchased Batteries of Make Leoman Battery 180 AH and Inverter of Luminous from opposite party No.1 and has paid a sum of Rs.35,000/- to opposite party No.1. It is further pleaded that all the products were sold to the complainant by opposite party No.1 subject to company warranty and it also has been duly mentioned on the invoice itself. The complainant was also provided warranty cards with respect to the products i.e. warranty of 2 years on behalf of respective manufacturer of the products. After denying and controverted all other averments of the complainant, opposite party No.1 has prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable against it and complaint is liable to be dismissed since it has been instituted with malafide and concocted grounds. In accordance with the established principles of law governing consumer protection, the complainant is not a 'consumer' of opposite party No.2. As such, the complaint is not tenable before this Forum constituted under 'Act'. The complainant is guilty of suppression, misrepresentation and distortion of material facts. No cause-of-action accrued to the complainant against opposite party No.2. The complaint is time barred. As per averments of complaint and documents produced by the complainant, the products were purchased on 9.5.2016 and this complaint was filed on 4.6.2018. On merits, opposite party No.2 has denied all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence documents (Ex.C1 to Ex.C-13). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Karamjit Singh dated 24.7.2018 (Ex.OP1/1). Opposite party No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jasmeet Singh Gill dated 13.7.2018 (Ex.OP-2/1). We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Counsel for complainant has argued that the complainant intended to purchased batteries, inverter and Controller for sollar plant for his house and accordingly, he purchased two batteries make Leoman Battery 180 AH, Controller make Sukarn and inverter make Luminous and paid Rs.35,000/-. Opposite party No. 1 had not issued any bill, rather it mentioned the price in the letter pad, which is Ex.C1. When the complainant demanded bill on next day, opposite party No.1 had issued bill, (Ex.C2) by mentioning the price as Rs.12,500/- and had given guarantee/warranty of said products. It is further argued that after 7 months of purchase, items became out of order and on complaint being lodged, battery was replaced by opposite party No.1, but thereafter again battery went out of order, but opposite party No.1 has neither removed the defect nor refunded amount to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in services. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party No.1 has argued that Ex.C1, is just a quotation and not a bill and in fact, the complainant had purchased Exide 2020/A Industrial UPS for Rs.8500/- and Sukam Sollar Inverter for Rs.4000/- and as such, bill was correctly issued in respect of purchase items and since the batteries were not purchased from opposite party No.1, as such, the complaint is not maintainable. Learned counsel for opposite party No.2 has argued that since the battery alleged by the complainant does not belong to opposite party No.2 company, as such, there is no deficiency in services. We have given careful consideration to these submissions. The contention of learned counsel for complainant that the complainant had paid Rs.35,000/- on account of purchase items mentioned in Ex.C1 is itself found to be incorrect as a persusal of copy of legal notice, (Ex.C3) shows that he had paid only Rs.12,500/- for purchase of items mentioned in Ex.C2 and thereafter in another notice, (Ex.C7), he had made reference of items mentioned in Ex.C1 and payment of Rs.35,000/-. This Commission is of the view that the complainant cannot wrrigle out of his admission made in legal notice, (Ex.C3) of having paid Rs.12,500/- to opposite party No.1 for purchase of items mentioned in Ex.C2. As such, it is held that he has miserably failed to prove that battery, which are alleged to be defective is purchased from opposite party No.1. Accordingly, the complaint being without merits, is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room. Announced : 16-06-2023 (Lalit Mohan Dogra) President (Shivdev Singh) Member
| |
