The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a Luminous Baterry Type-Eutra LE 18000 Serial No.34A031E1/971752 from Opposite party No.1 on 28.05.2012 vide ref No.440 on payment of Rs. 11,500/- Warranty for 18 months was given. The above said battery had failed to work for which the complainant did not get its utility. Regarding this the complainant lodged complaint before the Opposite Parties several times for rectification of defects. Finally the Op No-1 disclosed that the Battery is suffers from inherent manufacturing defects and advised to contact the OP No-2&3 for its replacement. Complainant contacted the OP No-2&3 yielded no results.
Despite notice the Op-1 neither appeared nor filed its counter who set ex-parte. In the reply filed by the Opposite parties No-2&3 it was pleaded that the complainant has not enclosed any evidence to show that the said product has show any inherent defect after ten month of its use and the complainant alleged inherent defect shown ulterior motive and malafide intention. The complainant never made a single complaint to the OP No-2&3. Complaint has not filed purchase bill, warranty card etc to substantiate his case. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be false and denied. Opposite parties No-2&3 prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
In support of his case the complainant the purchase bill marked herein as Exhibit-C/1 and the copy of warranty card marked herein as Exhibit-C/2. The Opposite Parties did not filed a single papers in support of their pleadings.
The only question arises is that whether the Opposite have indulged in unfair trade practice and committed any deficiency in service towards the Complainant ?
Arguments advanced by the Complainant and Mr. S.N. Brahma Id. Counsel for the Opposite Parties No-2&3 heard. Documents as well as pleadings were examined with their assistance.
Decision with Reasons
It is not disputed that the complainant has purchased the battery from the Opposite Party No-1 on 28.05.2012 which was manufactured by Opposite Party No.3.
The complainant was purchased the battery for personal use of the complainant categorically stated that the Battery became defective after its purchase, handed over to the Opposite Party No-1 for rectification of defects. The Ops did not brought any evidence in rebuttal which clearly makes out that the averments of the complainant cannot be disbelieved and have to be accepted in totality.
Further the opposite parties have not led any evidence to show that the battery in question is not out of defects as alleged by the complainant. The Opposite Party No.3 having the wide range of expertise and a big name in the business of UPS-Battery is also required to come up with the clarity to explain the actual position of the battery in question in support of their version. Expert engineer along with logical report explaining the technicalities ought to be brought on record because in the modern age each and every customer is having a legal right to get satisfaction for the each penny spent and Ops being service providers who are charging the market prices of battery as per their own choice are duty bound to provide proper and adequate services obviously which is missing in this case. The Ops have as such indulged in an unfair trade practice and has been deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant.
It is pertinent to mention here that when the Opposite Parties, dealer and manufacturer ought to have taken steps to demonstrate before the complainant and also before the Forum that they have rectified the defects that were found in the battery or the battery in question is free from all defects and it is in good condition and the same can be used under the warranty condition. Undisputedly, all the multi-national and big companies have adopted aggressive marketing for the sale of their products. Unfortunately, we have developed a practice tendency of not admitting the defects in the product and not replacing the same without contest. In other countries, even if there is aggressive marketing, defective products are easily replaced. That practice is required to be adopted, at least, by the big companies like the Opposite Parties No-3 herein. Instead of disputing the undisputed facts, the Companies should resolve the matter amicably at least during the warranty period.
We are fortified by a decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi reported in 2008 (2) CPR 128 (NC) titled as Nilambar Mishra & ANrs. Vs. A.K. Dutta & Ors., wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that : “ Manufacturing defect-Power Tiller-Purchased by petitioner after obtaining loan from Bank – Defect not rectified – No expert evidence on the Op to rebut the same Respondents jointly and severally liable”, further we come across a decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi report in III (2008) CPJ 157 NC titled as Unnikrishnan & Anr. Vs. V.Muraleedharan wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that: “Defective batteries sold and service had not been rendered in terms of 24 months guarantee- The deficiency in service would become writ large- Order of the State Commission directing petition to refund the price with interest and compensation upheld”.
In view of the foregoing reasons coupled with the facts and circumstances of case in hand the instant complaint is hereby allowed and it is hereby directed to the opposite party No-2&3 to replace the battery in question with defect free new battery with fresh warranty or refund the of the battery and also to pay Rs.5000/- ( Rupees Five Thousand) only to the complainant towards compensation for harassment and pay Rs. 1000/- towards the cost of litigation expenses.
The Order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in default, the Opposite Parties No- 2 & 3 are liable to pay Rs. 100/- per day till its realization. The complainant is at liberty to execute the same by invoking Section 25 &27 of CP. Act, 1986.
The complaint is disposed of accordingly.
A copy of this order be made available to the Parties as per the statutory requirement.
Pronounced in the open forum on this 29th May,2014.
