Order by:
Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President
1. The complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that that opposite party no.1 is the authorized Sale and Service Centre of Exide Battery whereas Opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer of the battery in dispute. The complainant is a good and law abiding citizen and on the allurement and green pastures showed by the opposite party no.1 & 2 for giving best services by the Exide Company through various advertisement and agents, the complainant purchased one battery make Exide Champion EXCP35R, AIB5A129647 from opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.R1-1622 dated 24.09.2015 worth Rs.3700/-, copy of invoice is Ex.C-2. At the time of purchase of battery in question, opposite party no.1 gave 36 months defect free warranty which exists till 24.09.2018 and this fact is also mentioned on the battery itself, photocopy of the Exide Battery Champion in question is Ex.C-3 and at the time of purchase, opposite party no.1 also assured that in case the battery in question creates any problem within warranty period, in such a case, the opposite parties shall provide the complainant a new defect free battery or the complainant shall have a right to take refund of its price. The complainant purchased the said battery from opposite party no.1 for the use in his car. Since the date of purchase, the battery in question is not working properly and giving various problems. The complainant visited the workshop of Hyundai Motors, Moga for checking the car in which the battery in question is installed, because his car oftenly gives starting problem and all the time, the Engineer of the Hyundai Motors after checking the car with the latest equipment told the complainant that the vehicle is having no defect, but the problem is in the battery of the car, as the same is not working properly. The complainant on so many occasions made oral as well as written request to the opposite parties for the Redressal of his grievance and asked to replace the battery in question with new defect free battery or to refund its price, as promised by opposite party no.1 at the time of selling the product to the complainant, because the battery in question is within warranty period, but to no effect. Thereafter in the month of November, 2016, the complainant visited the shop of opposite party no.1 and again requested them to redress his grievance. However, on the request of the complainant, the Service Engineer of the opposite parties visited the house of the complainant on 2.12.2016 and checked the battery in question and clearly told that there is some technical/inherent manufacturing defect in the battery and due to this reason, the battery is not working properly and said Engineer also told the complainant that he will come again and will replace the said battery with new defect free battery. Thereafter, nobody has turn up from the side of opposite parties to replace the battery in question. The complainant time and again visited the shop of opposite party no.1 with a request to replace the battery in question with new one or to refund its price, but opposite party no.1 did not give any satisfactory reply. The complainant also sent an e-mail to opposite parties on 12.01.2018 and then a person visited the house of the complainant who checked the battery in question and changed some cell in the battery in question, but after replacing the cell, the battery could not start. Thereafter the complainant again made complaint on 01.02.2018 to opposite parties and then an engineer from opposite party no.2 visited and checked the battery in question and told that there is some technical defect and assured that he will replace the battery in question with new one, but to no effect. Ultimately, the complainant made various complaints through e-mail to opposite parties on 11.03.2018, 15.03.2018, 19.03.2018, 23.03.2018, 25.03.2018, 26.03.2018, 28.03.2018, 29.03.2018 and then on 13.05.2018 and 16.05.2018 and made requests for the replacement of the battery in question with new one, but all in vain. Due to non functioning of the battery of the car, the complainant suffered mental tension and harassment, because as and when the complainant had to go out of station on his car for his daily routine work/business, the car in question remained stopped and on all the occasions, the complainant was compelled to hire the taxi to go out of station by spending huge money. Not only this, in these compelling circumstances, when the complainant got no response from the opposite parties on running pillar to post, the complainant purchased a new battery make Amaron worth Rs.3980/-, vide bill no.9482 dated 18.05.2018 from Shri Krishna Power Solution, G.T. Road, copy of the bill is Ex.C-14. Due to the aforesaid act and conduct and deficiency in service of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and financial loss. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.
- To direct the Opposite Parties to refund the price of the battery in question amounting to Rs.3700/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the date of its purchase till realization.
- Further they be directed to pay Rs.80,000/- to complainant as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs.10,000/- as costs of the complaint.
- And any other relief may kindly be granted as this Commission may deem fit and proper.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite parties at all and is liable to be dismissed as this complaint has been instituted with malafide and concocted grounds; that in accordance with the established principles of law governing Consumer Protection, the complainant is not a consumer of opposite parties and as such the complaint under reply is not tenable before this Commission under the Consumer Protection Act; that the complainant is guilty of suppression, misrepresentation and distortion of material facts; that the saves and except what are specifically and expressly admitted herein, each and every allegation made in the complaint are denied by the answering opposite parties. On merits, it is submitted that the complainant had misrepresented the facts and intentionally not placed on record his warranty card. The battery in question was having free replacement warranty only for 18 months from the date of purchase. After 18 months the defective battery comes under prorata, which means the customer have to pay the discounted price of new replaced battery as per schedule mentioned in the warranty card, which as follows:
0 to 18 months : Free Replacement
19 to 21 months : New Battery at 50% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
22 to 24 months : New Battery at 45% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
25 to 27 months : New Battery at 35% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
28 to 30 months : New Battery at 25% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
31 to 33 months : New Battery at 20% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
34 to 36 months : New Battery at 15% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
The complainant intentionally not produced the warranty card and concealed this fact from this Commission. It has been further submitted that on 02.12.2016, the battery in question was charged and after testing the same by the Engineer, same was found to be O.K. Further no complaint was made by the complainant as such question of going to complainant does not arise. It is admittedly correct that the complainant sent an e-mail to the Exide Care and it was informed to the complainant that the battery in question is out of warranty and same can be replaced on Prorata basis i.e. by taking discounted price, but the complainant refused to return the old battery for getting new battery on Prorata basis. It is correct that on 12.01.2018, employee of the answering opposite parties visited the site and after checking the battery found that the battery is very law. The said person/employee advised the complainant to contact the dealer, but the complainant not made single visit to opposite party no.1. Further there is no process or technique to change the cell in the battery. It is further correct that the complainant sent e-mails to Exide Care and the complainant was asked to replace the battery on Prorata basis, but he refused to do the same and was adamant to replace the battery free of costs. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the answering opposite parties. Opposite parties was always ready to replace the battery on Prorata basis as per terms and conditions mentioned in Warranty Card, but the complainant refused to do the same. The complainant filed a false complaint by manipulating the facts. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3. In order to prove his case, the complainant alongwith the complaint attached his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 in support of the allegations made in the complaint and copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C-15.
4. On the other hand, to rebut the allegations of the complainant, the Opposite Parties alongwith their reply attached the affidavit of Sh.Krishan Kumar, Proprietor, Shanker Electric Works Ex.OPs-1 and copy of warranty card Ex.OPs-2.
5. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and also gone through the written arguments filed by the Opposite Parties as well as the evidence on record.
6. During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Parties have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in written reply respectively. It is not disputed that the Complainant purchased the battery make Exide Champion EXCP35R, AIB5A129647 from opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.R1-1622 dated 24.09.2015 worth Rs.3700/-, copy of invoice is Ex.C-2. The case of the Complainant is that at the time of purchase of battery in question, opposite party no.1 gave 36 months defect free warranty which exists till 24.09.2018 and this fact is also mentioned on the battery itself, photocopy of the Exide Battery Champion in question is Ex.C-3. Further contended that at the time of purchase, opposite party no.1 also assured that in case the battery in question creates any problem within warranty period, in such a case, the opposite parties shall provide the complainant a new defect free battery or the complainant shall have a right to take refund of its price. As per the inspection of the Engineer sent by the Opposite Parties to check the battery in question, it is manufacturing/ inherit defect and it can not be repaired and ld.counsel for the Complainant further contended that that when the Opposite Parties flatly refused to replace the batter or to refund price, the Complainant was compelled to purchase a new battery make Amaron worth Rs.3980/-, vide bill no.9482 dated 18.05.2018 from Shri Krishna Power Solution, G.T. Road, copy of the bill is Ex.C-5.
7. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contention of the ld. Counsel for the Complainant on the ground that the battery in question was having free replacement warranty only for 18 months from the date of purchase. After 18 months the defective battery comes under prorata, which means the customer have to pay the discounted price of new replaced battery as per schedule mentioned in the warranty card. As per the averment of the complainant, he lodged a complaint with the Opposite Parties regarding the non working the battery in question on 02.12.2016 and in rebuttal to this avertment, the Opposite Parties though admitted that the engineer of the Opposite Party visited the house of the complainant and after checking, the batter in question was charged and after testing the same by the engineer, the same was found to be OK and this fact has nowhere denied by the complainant by producing any cogent and convincing evidence in rebuttal. Further perusal of the Site Inspection Report dated 12.01.2018 Ex.C6 clearly shows that thereafter, the complainant lodged complaint with the Opposite Parties and at that time, the battery in question was very low. In this regard, the Opposite Parties have vehemently contended that after 18 months the defective battery comes under prorata, which means the customer have to pay the discounted price of new replaced battery as per schedule mentioned in the warranty card, which as follows:
0 to 18 months : Free Replacement
19 to 21 months : New Battery at 50% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
22 to 24 months : New Battery at 45% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
25 to 27 months : New Battery at 35% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
28 to 30 months : New Battery at 25% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
31 to 33 months : New Battery at 20% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
34 to 36 months : New Battery at 15% Discount on
Prevailing Maximum Retail Price
8. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased the battery make Exide Champion EXCP35R, AIB5A129647 from opposite party no.1 vide invoice No.R1-1622 dated 24.09.2015 worth Rs.3700/-, copy of invoice is Ex.C-2 and as per the admitted contentions of both the parties, and as per the perusal of the Site Inspection Report dated 12.01.2018 Ex.C6 the battery for the first time became low. Hence, keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that at the most, the complainant may be entitled to the relief on prorate basis.
9. The battery in question is admittedly purchased by the complainant from the Opposite Parties on 24.09.2015 and the battery for the first time found became low on 12.01.2018 i.e. within 2 years 3 months 19 days and as per the contention of the Opposite Parties, on prorate basis, maximum the complainant could be given 35% discount on purchasing a new battery which comes to Rs. 1295/- (i.e. 35% of Rs.3700/-) and we decide the complaint accordingly.
10. So far as compensation of Rs.80,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses, as claimed is concerned, since the complainant was compelled to knock the door of this Commission and the opposite parties did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant for a long period and had it was redressed at appropriate time, certainly this litigation could have been avoided. Admittedly “compensation term” has not been explained in the Consumer Protection Act, however this Act is based on principle of equity, good concise and natural justice and the Commission is empowered to award compensation after assessing the facts of each case. As the complainant, has suffered a lot of mental as well as physical agony due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No. 2, as such Opposite Party No. 2 is liable to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses to the complainant accordingly.
11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, Opposite Party No. 2-Exide Industry Limited, is directed to make the payment of Rs.1,295/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred ninety five only) as detailed above, to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the instant complaint i..01.06.2018 till its realization. Opposite Party No. 2- Exide Industries Limited is also directed to pay Rs.1,500/- (one thousand five hundred only) on account of compensation for causing mental tension and harassment besides Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. The compliance of this order be made by Opposite Party No. 2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this District Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
12. Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.
This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021. Moreover, the President of this Commission is doing additional duties at District Consumer Commission, Faridkot and furthermore due to pandemic of COVID-19.
Announced in Open Commission.
