DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 81 of 27.2.2007<br /> Decided on: 28.1.2008<br /> Gurdeep Singh son of Santokh Singh son of Sulakhan Singh, resident of village Dhanouri Tehsil Samana District Patiala.<br /> -----------Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> 1. Proprietor/Partner, Hindsons Traders Bye Pass Road, Samana, District <br /> Patiala.<br /> 2. Amaron Raja Batteries Ltd., Registered Office,Renigunta,Cuddapah <br /> Road Karakambadi-517520,Tirupathi-Andhra Pradesh through its <br /> Managing Director.<br /> <br /> ----------Opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the<br /> Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> QUORUM<br /> <br /> Sh.Inderjit Singh, President<br /> Smt.Paramjit Kaur,Member<br /> <br /> Present:<br /> For the complainant: Sh.Amandeep Singh,adv.<br /> For opposite parties: Sh,Sanjay Khanna,adv.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> SH.INDERJIT SINGH,PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Complainant,Gurdeep Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint.<br /> 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this;<br /> That complainant has purchased an Amaron Battery code 5501056207727,part No.INV160DOR4R vide bill No.H/PS/189 dated 19.4.2006 from opposite party No.1, the authorized dealer of Amaron batteries ,opposite party No.2.The said battery was purchased for using in inverter at home. At the time of purchase of said battery opposite party had given free replacement warranty for the first twelve months from the date of purchase and prorated compensation for the next twelve months and also issued duly stamped warranty card alongwith invoice bill. As per the warranty card opposite party No.1 is bound to replace the battery in case of any defect with in the said time. That in the month of December 2006 the said battery started giving problem as the same stopped its function. As such complainant approached opposite party No. at their notice and requested them to look into the matter. Opposite party No.1promised to complainant that they would send mechanic to his home to check the battery in a day or two. But opposite party No.1 had not sent any person to check the battery and at last on 3rd February complainant himself brought the battery to opposite party’s shop as he required it urgently due to frequent power cuts. At that time Lakhbir Singh son of Jagga Singh resident of Sujan Singh Street Ghagga Road, Amana was accompanying the complainant. The opposite party No.1 got checked the battery from their mechanic and found the same to be defective and dead. Although it was the duty of opposite party No.1 to replace the said battery at the same time but opposite party No.1 asked complainant to keep the battery in their workshop as they were to send the battery to company and get the new one after some days. The opposite party No.1 also refused to give service battery and to issue any receipt for keeping said battery. That after a week complainant with Sh.Narinder Singh son of Amrik Singh resident of village Dhanouri Tehsil Samana District Patiala contacted opposite party No.1 to get the battery but opposite party No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext and other. Complainant had also requested opposite party No.1 that he required the battery urgently due to frequent power cuts in village and the coming examination of children. But opposite party No.1 did not bother about the said reauests.That on 16.2.2007 when complainant along with his brother Shamsher Singh and Baldev Singh son of Santokh Singh son of Sarda Singh resident of village Dhanouri Tehsil Samana District Patiala again came to opposite party no.1 to get his battery, but opposite party No.1 flatly refused to get it replaced even without assigning any reason. Opposite party No.1 asked the complainant that they are not bound to replace the battery. The person who introduced himself owner of opposite party No.1misbehaved with complainant by using filthy language and asked complainant that it is not his sweet will to get the battery replaced when he wants and he also asked complainant that it seems that the complainant is idle man who is visiting the office again and again. When complainant objected to the said statements of opposite party No.1, they returned old said battery of complainant by keeping it out of their workshop. The complainant who is a Sarpanch of his village had to face great insult in the presence of said person accompanying complainant, officials, and mechanics of opposite party No.1.The complainant is ready to produce the said battery before this Forum. That then complainant got issued a legal notice dated 16.2.2007 to opposite parties through his counsel Amandeep Singh Bindra,adv. demanding the replacement of said battery along with Rs.25000/-as compensation for mental and physical harassment faced by complainant and Rs.1100/-as the costs of sending legal notice. But the opposite parties failed to admit the requests of complainant. That the acts of opposite parties of not replacing the battery, keeping battery without any receipt and without issuing any service battery for many days and misbehaving with complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for which complainant has to suffer a great physical and mental tension. Complainant’s son, nephews and nieces are not able to prepare for the coming exams during the electricity cuts, when electricity is required for lighting. As such opposite parties have caused a loss to the tune ofRs.25000/-to complainant. The son of complainant is student of 9th standard in St.Lawrence School, Amana and nephew and niece are also students of same school. One niece is student of Budha Dal Public School,Samana.Hence this complaint.<br /> 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties who appeared and filed the written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is alleged that vide bill No.H/PS/189 dated 19.4.2006 a battery was sold by the opposite party No.1.The battery supplied was a new one and in running condition with usual warranty for first 12 months from the date of purchase and the detailed terms and conditions of warranty are mentioned in the warranty card duly supplied at the time of issuing bill. The said warranty is limited to all defects arising from the use of faulty material or poor workmanship. Consequential liabilities will not be entertained. In event of any complaint the battery has to be returned to any nearby Amaron Service location. Opposite party/rectified battery has to be collected from the same point. The right to determine whether a battery need free replacement or prorate settlement rests with the companya.Warranty period will commence only from the date of sale of new battery. Therefore, the date of replacement of battery under warranty will not attract the warranty period. As per terms of the warranty the battery has to be handed over to the service location for determination of any defect or replacement. It is wrong that in the month of December 2006 the battery started giving problem or stopped it function. It is wrong that complainant approached opposite party No. 1 at their office or requested them to look into the matter as alleged. It is wrong that opposite party No.1 promised to the complainant that they would sent mechanic to his house to check battery in a day or two or opposite party No.1 had not sent any person to check battery or at last on 3rd February,2007,complainant himself brought battery to the shop of opposite party No.1 or he required it urgently or due to frequent power cuts as alleged. It is wrong that at that time Lakhbir Singh son of Jagga Singh, resident of Sujan Singh Street,Ghagga Road,Samana, was accompanying complainant as alleged. It is wrong that opposite party No.1 got checked the battery from their mechanic or found the same to be defective or dead as alleged. It is wrong that it was the duty of opposite party No.1 to replace the battery at the same time or opposite party No.1 asked complainant to keep battery in their workshop or as they are to send the battery to company and get new one after some days as alleged. It is wrong that opposite party No.1 also refused to give service battery or to issue any receipt for keeping the said battery as alleged. However, Gurdeep Singh son of Santokh Singh of village Dhanauri,Tehsil Samana came to the opposite party No.1 on 16.2.2007 with alleged defective battery and opposite party No.1 told him that they will take 2-3 days for replacement with new battery as it was not in stock. He insisted that he will get right now, which was not possible due to out of stock and he left the shop. The opposite party No.1 through reply dated 23.2.007 had intimated Gurdeep Singh son of Santokh Singh and Amandeep Singh Bindra,advocate that battery is available and he can have the replacement of battery in question on any working day. The complainant never came to opposite party No.1 before 16.2.2007 or after it, so, delaying the matter does not arise at all as stated by him. It is wrong that after a week complainant with Sh.Narinder Singh son of Amrik Singh, resident of village Dhanouri,Tehsil Samana,District Patiala contacted opposite party No.1 to get the battery of opposite party No.1 lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other. It is wrong that complainant had also requested opposite party No.1 that he required battery urgently or due to frequent power cuts in village or coming examination of children as alleged. It is wrong that opposite party No.1 did not bother about the said requests as alleged. It is wrong that on 16.2.2007 when complainant alongwith his brother Shamsher Singh and Baldev Singh son of Santokh Singh son of Sarda Singh resident of village Dhanauri,Tehsil Samana again came to opposite party no.1 to get his battery replaced, or opposite party No.1 flatly refused to get it replaced or even without assigning any reason, as alleged. It is wrong that opposite party No.1 asked complainant that they are not bound to replace the battery as alleged. It is wrong that person who introduced himself owner of opposite party No.1 misbehaved with complainant by using filthy language or asked complainant that it is not his sweet will to get battery replaced whenever he wants or he also asked complainant that it seems that complainant is idle man or who is visiting the office again and again as alleged. It is wrong that when complainant objected to say statement of opposite party No.1 they returned old said of complainant by keeping it out of their workshop. It is wrong that complainant who is Sarpanch of his village had to face great insult in the presence of said person accompanying him or officials or mechanics of opposite party No.1 as alleged. It is correct that the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 16.2.2007 to opposite parties through his counsel Amandeep Singh Bindra,advocate but the allegations in the notice were wrong. It is wrong that the opposite parties failed to admit the requests of the complainant as alleged, rather a reply dated 23.2.2007 was duly given vide R.L.No.440,441 dated 24.2.2007 from post office, Samana, and the allegations of the complainant in the rejoinder dated 5.3.2007 are false and wrong and the same are also denied. It is wrong that acts of opposite parties for not replacing the battery keeping battery without any receipt of within issuing any service battery for many days or misbehaving with complainant amounts to deficiency in service or unfair trade practice or for which complainant has to suffer great physical or mental tension as alleged. It is wrong that complainant’s son, nephew and nieces are not able to prepare for the coming exams during the electricity cuts, or when electricity is required for lighting, as alleged. It is wrong that the son of the complainant is student of 9th class in St.Lawrence School,Samana or nephew or niece is also student of same school as alleged. It is wrong that one niece is student of Budha Dal Public School,Samana as alleged. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed.<br /> 4. In order to prove his case the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit,Ex.CW1, affidavit of Shamsher Singh, Ex.CW2, affidavit of Lakhbir Singh,Ex.CW3,affidavit of Narinder Singh,Ex.CW4,affidavit of Baldev Singh,Ex.CW5, copy of invoice,Ex.C1, copy of warranty card,Ex.C2, copy of notice dated 16.2.2007,Ex.C3, copy of postal receipts,Ex.C4, copy of reply to the legal notice,Ex.C5, copy of rejoinder to reply,Ex.C6, copy of postal receipt,Ex.C7 and copy of invoice bill dated 9.4.2007,Ex.C8.<br /> 5. In rebuttal the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit,Ex.RW/1 of Anil Gupta, letter dated 23.2.2007,Ex.R1 and postal receipts,Exs.R2 and R3.<br /> 6. The complainant filed the written arguments, whereas opposite parties did not file the written arguments. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case carefully.<br /> 7. It is admitted by the opposite parties that vide bill No.H/PS/189 dated 19.4.2006,Ex.C1, a battery was sold to the complainant with user warranty for 12 months from the date of purchase. It is admitted by the opposite parties that Gurdip Singh, came to the opposite parties on 16.2.2007 with the alleged defective battery. It is also admitted that opposite party No.1 told him that they will take 2-3 days for replacement with new battery as it was not in stock. The opposite parties in the reply,Ex.C5, dated 23.2.2007 to the notice dated 16.2.2007 also admitted that Gurdip Singh S/o Santokh Singh come to them on 16.2.2007 with defective battery and that they told him that it will take 2-3 days for replacement as new battery was not in stock. It is also admitted in letter,Ex.C5,that the battery is available and the complainant can have the replacement of battery in question on any working day. So as per the letter,Ex.C5, the opposite parties have that Gurdip Singh came with the defective battery and now they have a fresh battery available in the stock with them. It is also admitted that the complainant can have the replacement of battery in question on any working day.<br /> 8. So in view of the admission of the opposite parties in the reply to the complaint as well as in the letter dated 23.2.2007,Ex.C5, we allow the complaint partly and direct the opposite parties either to replace the battery with the same make of the defect less battery or refund the price i.e. Rs.5800/- with another sum of Rs.2000/- as compensation inclusive of costs for harassment ,inconvenience and mental torture within a period of one month from the receipt of the copy of the order. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.<br /> File be consigned to the record.<br /> Pronounced.<br /> Dated:28.1.2008.<br /> <br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />