Complainant Naveen Saini through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has prayed that the opposite party be directed to make the battery fit for use or replace the defective battery with a new one or to take back the battery in question and to refund full price alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of its purchase till actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to him on account of mental agony, non utilization of the battery, physical harassment, financial loss caused by the opposite parties on account of deficiency in service alongwith Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he purchased a Battery Make Su-kam Mode CN150 AH Serial No.00301AS1870301139214 from the opposite party no.1 on 16.6.2013 for Rs.13,000/- and is covered under the full warranty of three years from the date of purchase i.e. 16.6.2013. In the month of May 2016, the battery in question became defective and ultimately stopped giving backup. This fact were brought into the notice of opposite parties and he lodged complaint No.17054071516 and they deputed Engineer Sh.Ajmer Singh who checked the battery and tried to rectify the defects and ever thereafter message was conveyed to him that problem resolved, but infact there was no improvement in the battery, nor it gives back up. Thereafter complaint No.17054083523 lodged on 30.5.2016 with the same problem, but of no use. He had been receiving messages of problem resolved whereas on ground the opposite parties did not take any action for removing defects from the battery. He lodged complaints on 16.6.2016, 30.6.2016, 4.07.2016 and 7.7.2016, but all in vain. He also contacted Mr.Nagesh Kumar Pandey Area Manager Su-kam on phone No.70427-93075 and Mr.Gurwinder Amritsar Service provided on Phone No.7508316878, but till today no action into the matter has been taken at any level and his battery is lying out of order. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.

3. Upon notice, the opposite party no.1 appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is malafide and the complainant is trying to misuse the process of consumer Forum. The Battery in dispute never remained defective and the terms and conditions of the warranty period has been duly explained to the complainant at the time of its purchase so the opposite party is not liable to pay anything to the complainant in case of its defect. On merits, it was submitted that the battery in question was very well in working condition at the time of its sale. Moreover, if there was any alleged inherent manufacturing defect in the said battery, then why the complainant have took the same to his house. Moreover, complainant had purchased the battery in question on 16.6.2013 and he never lodged any complaint regarding its working uptill the month of May, 2016. It means the battery was working properly during the period of approximately three years. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4. Opposite party no.2 and 3 appeared through its counsel and filed the written reply by taking the preliminary objections that complaint is malafide and the dishonest litigant is trying to misuse the process of Consumer Court. The battery in dispute never remained defective. And the opposite party no.2 and 3 are entitled for compensatory cost of Rs.15,000/- from the complainant for defending the complaint as the complaint filed by the complainant is misconceived. On merits, it was submitted that complaint No.17054071516 was received which was disposed of vide field service report dated 24.05.2016. The concerned official Azmer Singh checked the battery and found battery terminal loose and he properly connected the loose terminal and found the system ok and after satisfaction the complainant put his signature on the field service report. It was next submitted that complaint dated 30.5.2016 received on 1.06.2016. The concerned official checked the battery and found ok, but the complainant was not satisfied and complainant pressed the opposite party no.3 to replace the battery with the new one or got checked from TRC Amritsar Service Centre, So, the official recommended for testing of battery to TRC Amritsar Centre. The Engineer from TRC Amritsar Service Centre was called to lift the battery for testing. The official went to complainant house on four wheeler (Van). He met with the complainant for seeking the permission to lift and test the battery to TRC Amritsar Service Centre, but the complainant refused to give permission, although the official took the signature of the complainant in the Log Book. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

6. Sh.Dheeraj Sharma Proprietor of opposite party no.1 tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.

7. Counsel for the opposite parties no.2 and 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ajmer Singh Engineer Sukam Service Centre Ex.OP-2,3/A alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2,3/1 to Ex.OP-2,3/8 and closed the evidence.

8. We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides while adjudicating the present complaint.

9. It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased a Battery make Su-kam Model CN-150 AH Serial No.00301AS1870301139214 from the opposite party/respondent no.1 vide cash bill No.497 dated 16.6.2013, amounting to Rs.13,000/-. The opposite party no.2 is the manufacturer of abovesaid Battery and opposite party no.3 is authorized representative/service centre of Su-kam. The battery is covered under the full warranty of three years from the date of purchase i.e. 16.06.2013 and which is also clear from the document Ex.-C2 as warranty periods- Table B. It is also stated by complainant that Battery Backup is low and due to this reason, complaint has been lodged with opposite parties which is clear on field service report Ex.C-3, Ex.C-4 and Ex.C-5. But the abovesaid battery did not work and has not been repaired to the satisfaction of the complainant. Moreover complainant is a consumer of opposite parties and the consumer should be satisfied, whereas the complainant is suffering and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

10. In the light of the all above, we partly allow the complaint and order the opposite party no.2 and 3 to remove the defects from the battery of the complainant. The opposite party no.1 is also directed to help the complainant in this regard. The opposite party no.2 and 3 are directed to remove the defects from the battery within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of orders besides Rs.3000/- cost of litigation be paid by the opposite party no.2 and 3. If, the opposite party no.2 and 3 fails to comply with orders within one month from the receipt of the copy of order, then the complainant is further entitled for 9% interest on the ordered amount from the date of order till its realization.

11. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

(Naveen Puri)

President

Announced: (Jagdeep Kaur)

June, 28 2017 Member

*MK*