By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

The complaint filed against the Opposite Parties to compensate the Complainant for the substandard battery delivered to the Complainant, purchaser.

2. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is the purchaser of an Amron Battery in June 2008. The purchase value of the battery is Rs.4,700/- the Complainant was offered the guarantee of 2 years at the time of purchase and subsequently within a period of six months from the purchase date of battery, the battery found to be defective and the same was informed to the 1^st Opposite Party the seller of the battery. The 1^st Opposite Party stated one or other reasons and the battery was not exchanged with a fresh battery which is free from any defect. When the battery was entrusted to the 1^st Opposite Party the bill and warranty card were also given on his demand. Selling a defective battery to the Complainant by the 1^st Opposite Party is an unfair trade practice. The repeated request of the Complainant was not taken into consideration by the 1^st Opposite Party later the 1^st Opposite Party turned to be in unfriendly behaviour when demanded for the fresh battery.

3. The Complainant had to endure extensive hardships in the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party. The purchase of a new battery in the place of the defective one for the operation of the vehicle is also one among the difficulties. The sale of sub-substandard and defective battery to the Complainant caused heavy loss and that is to be compensated. The 2^nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the battery.

4. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party on either to substitute fresh and functioning battery in the place of the defective one or the purchase price of the battery is to be given to the Complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% from July 2008 onwards along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

5. The Opposite Parties filed version in brief it is as follows:- The purchase of Amron Battery by the 1^st Opposite Party is admitted it is not in June 2008. The Complainant purchased the battery from the 1^st Opposite Party for Rs.4,700/- on 15.05.2008 and at the time of sale the Complainant was given the warranty for a period of one year and it was also convinced by the Complainant. The allegation of the Complainant that there was an offer of 2 years warranty is false. The 2^nd Opposite Party offers only a warranty of one year for the batteries manufactured by them. The other contention of the Complainant that the battery found to be defective within a period of six months and when the battery was received by the 1^st Opposite Party for exchange the bill and warranty card was entrusted to this Opposite Party are incorrect. There was no latches on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party in rendering the service and no evasive attitude was ever taken. The 1^st Opposite Party was not sent any lawyer notice demanding the exchange of the battery. There was no information from the Complainant that battery purchased by him had any defect. This Opposite Party came to know the defects of the battery only when the notice sent from this Forum was received. The company had toll free number and in case of any if met with the battery. The Complainant used to rectify the mistake without any delay. There was no information from the Complainant in respect of any defect. The battery purchased by the Complainant has crossed the warranty period of one year and the warranty period is clearly mentioned in the sticker affixed on the battery. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

6. Supplemented Opposite Party No.2 filed statement disowning the liability in the absence of warranty car and it was not informed in time.

7. The Points in consideration are:-

1. Is there any unfair trade practice in the sale of the battery to the Complainant?

2. Relief and cost.

8. Points No.1 and 2:- The Complainant and Opposite Party filed proof affidavits, witness for the Complainant is also examined in this case. The document consists of Exts.A1 to A3, MO1 and MO2, B1 to B7. The oral testimony of the Complainant and witness are also considered.

9. The sale of the battery to the Complainant is admitted, the allegation is in respect of the defective battery sold to the Complainant. The contention of the 1^st Opposite Party is that the defect of the battery was not informed to the 1^st Opposite Party within the warranty period. On the other hand the Complainant who is examined as PW1 is having plea that when the battery found to be defective it was entrusted to the 1^st Opposite Party along with warranty card and the bill. The warranty offer of the battery is for a period of one year. The purchase was effected on 15.05.2008 as per Ext.B1. The Battery is marked as MO1. The Complainant also produced an another battery which is marked as MO2 this battery is purchased by the Complainant when the first battery found defective for the purpose of plying the vehicle. The notice sent to the 1^st Opposite Party was returned with an endorsement “no such addressee” at Crown Automobile Pulpally. The shop of the 1^st Opposite Party is the Crown Automobile, Pulpally. The contention of the 1^st Opposite Party is that in the address in which the notice sent is incorrect but at the same time it is admitted by the 1^st Opposite Party that there is no shop in Pulpally town as Crown Automobile. The notice was sent in the address Prakasan, Proprietor Crown Automobile Pulpally. The rejections of the notice by the 1^st Opposite Party is a deliberate act. The 1^st Opposite Party has no case that the battery sold by him is free from any complaint. The main contention of the 1^st Opposite Party is that he was not informed of the complaint within warranty period. The witness who accompanied the Complainant is examined as PW2 who stated that when the battery was entrusted to the 1^st Opposite Party he was also present the defective battery was produced in the shop within the warranty period that was in January 2009. Apart from the oral testimony the Complainant has not produced any document to show that the battery was entrusted to the 1^st Opposite Party for rectification. From the evidence on records and from the oral testimony of the witness it is considered that the battery MO1 sold to the Complainant is defective and the sale of the defective battery is an unfair trade practice. The 2^nd Opposite Party has no information by the 1^st Opposite Party and liability of the 2^nd Opposite Party is deleted.

9. The Complainant purchased battery at the price of Rs.4,700/- the purchase price of the battery is to be refunded to the Complainant along with cost.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.4,700/- (Rupees Four thousand Seven hundred only) to the Complainant. The Complainant is also entitled for an interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing this complaint till realisation of the amount. The Complainant is also entitled for the cost of Rs.1,000/- ( Rupees One thousand only). On payment of the ordered sum the 1^st Opposite Party is to be delivered the battery MO1. This is to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 31^st March 2011.

Date of filing:24.06.2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

Sd/-

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

PW1. Jomon Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Prasad. Proprietor, Crown Automobiles, Pulpally.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1series Bill, Warranty Booklet.

(Marked with Objection)

A2 series. Copy of Letter.

A3 series. Returned cover.

MO1. Battery.

MO2 Battery.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of the Bill dt:15.05.2008.

B2 series (3 Nos.) Tax Invoice.

B3. Copy of General Instruction for usage and maintenance.

B4. Copy of Identity Card.

B5. Copy of Driving Licence.

B6. Copy of Licence. dt:13.07.2007.

B7. Certificate of Registration. dt:06.07.2007.