BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.246 of 2016
Date of Instt. 07.06.2016
Date of Decision:25.10.2017
Naveen Chhabra Advocate, R/o House No.33, New Vijay Nagar, Jalandhar City.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Sarin Singh & Bros, Nehru Garden Road, Jalandhar City-144001.
2. Exide Industries Limited, Exide House, 59E, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700020.
3. Exide Industries Limited, Opp. Vista Palace, Village Hazara, Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar City-144025.
..….… Opposite parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)
Sh. Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh. Neeraj Thakur, Adv Counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Harshant Dogra, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 to 3.
Order
Karnail Singh (President)
1. This complaint is filed by the complainant, wherein stated that the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act and as such, he is competent to file the present complaint against the OPs. The OP No.1 is authorized dealer of the OP No.2 and OP No.2 is head office of Exide Industries and OP No.3 is service centre of OP No.2. The complainant purchased Exide battery is having serial No.035D/020044 from OP No.1, who is authorized dealer of the OP No.2, vide bill No.4384 dated 27.07.2012. Simultaneously, the OP No.1 issued a warranty card reflecting 48 months warranty of the above said battery from the date of purchase. In the month of 20th April, 2016, the said battery created problem such as “Low Back Up” and the complainant made a complaint to the OP No.3 regarding the aforesaid problem. On 21.04.2016, the engineer of the OP No.2 visited to the complainant, but he flatly refused to repair the battery and also said that the battery is out of warranty, vide FSR No.ND 391. It is pertinent to mention here that the said battery is still under warranty till today and this is unfair trade practice adopted by the OP No.2 and 3. The complainant is an advocate and due to non working of the said battery, the complainant suffered heavy monetary loss. The complainant sent legal notice to the OP No.1 to 3 on 09.05.2016, but all in vain and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to replace the Exide battery with new one or to refund the cost of the battery to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay compensation for harassment and mental tension to the complainant to the tune of Rs.30,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay compensation for suffering a loss to the complainant due to non attendance of his clients to the tune of Rs.40,000/- and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.10,000/- being the losses suffered due to visits to the OPs, workshop and further OPs be directed to pay litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly OP No.1 appeared through his counsel Sh. Harshant Dogra, Adv and later on, the said Advocate also appeared on behalf of the OP No.2 and 3 and filed a written reply of OP No.1 separately and written reply of OP No.2 and 3 separately, but the plea taken on both the written reply is almost same. So, accordingly, we will discuss the plea taken in written reply of OP No.1, wherein took a preliminary objection that the complainant has filed a false complaint against the answering OP, as the complainant has concealed the material facts and has not approached the Forum with clean hands. At the time of the purchase of the battery in question from the answering OP, it was made clear to the complainant that the battery in question has replacement warranty for a period of 36 months from the date of purchase and deprecation warranty for a period of 12 months, after the expiry of the said period of 36 months. Thus, the replacement warranty of the battery in question had already expired before 20.04.2016, when the alleged problem is reported by the complainant and further averred that the present complaint is not legally maintainable against the OP, it deserves to be dismissed with special cost. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant purchased the battery from the OP but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith some documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and then closed the evidence.
4. Similarly, counsel for the OP No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP/A and then closed the evidence.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also scanned the case file very minutely.
6. After considering the over all circumstances as put before us and it reveals that the purchase of the Exide battery from OP on 27.07.2012, is not denied and even it is also admitted that a warranty was given but the OP has took a plea that the warranty was given for 36 months for replacement of the battery from the date of purchase and further 12 months warranty was given for deprecation, after the expiry of the said period of 36 months and also alleged that the replacement warranty of the battery in question had already been expired before 20.04.2016, the day on which the complainant made a complaint and in support of this version, the counsel for the OP has referred a “field service report”, made by the engineer of the OP, the same is Ex.C3, wherein categorically mentioned that the battery is out of warranty.
7. Now, question for adjudication before us is only whether the battery created a problem regarding low backup, was within a warranty period or not. As per version of the complainant, 48 months warranty was given from the date of purchase and in support of this version, the complainant has brought on the file copy of bill/invoice Ex.C1, wherein the date for purchase is 27.07.2012 and period of warranty is mentioned on the warranty card Ex.C2 as 48 months from the date of purchase. So, it means that as per Ex.C1 and Ex.C2, the warranty of the Exide battery is 4 years i.e. up to 27.07.2016 and complaint for low backup was made by the complainant on 21.04.2016, means prior to expiry of 48 months. The OP alleged that the warranty for replacement of battery was given 36 months and deprecation warranty was given for 12 months, after the expiry of the said period of 36 months, but the plea taken by the OP is not in black and white, rather it is oral one and oral one plea cannot be accepted, if on the contrary, there is a documentary evidence. So, in this case, the plea taken by the complainant is based on document i.e. warranty card Ex.C2, wherein crystal clear depicted that the warranty is 48 months but it is not mentioned in the warranty card that the 36 months warranty is given for replacement and further 12 months warranty for deprecation. So, with these observations, the plea taken by the OP is not tenable or acceptable, whereas the case set up by the complainant is wholly proved and established and accordingly, we find that the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
8. As an upshoot of our above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant succeeds and accordingly, the same is partly accepted and OPs are directed to replace the Exide battery of the complainant with a new one, after getting back the old one and further OPs are directed to pay compensation for harassment and mental tension to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-. The aforesaid compliance be made within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of order, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay interest on the aforesaid amount of Rs.15,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint till realization. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Karnail Singh
25.10.2017 Member President
