aKERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM APPEAL NO.494/04 JUDGMENT DATED: 19.5.08 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Idukki in OP.3/04 PRESENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER The Manager, Battery World, Base Terminal No.6, : APPELLANT Pullanmala Road, Kattappana 685508. (By Adv.B.Vasudevan Nair) Vs Shiji Joseph, : RESPONDENT Palakkattukunnel House. Balagram.P.O., Kallar-685552. (By Adv.S.Ajithkumar) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party/dealer who is under orders to pay Rs.6200/- being the price of the battery, Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- as cost to the complainant with respect to the defective battery of the invertor supplied to the complainant vide, the order of CDRF, Idukki in OP.3/04. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he purchased the battery on 4.11.2002 from the shop of the opposite party who represented that it was manufactured by Japan Panasonic Company and that no maintenance would be required for one year and that there would be no requirement to recharge the same for the minimum period of one year. But after 6 months the battery had to be recharged and Rs.200/- was charged from the complainant. Further on 8.8.03 at 8.am the battery burst out and damaged house hold articles worth Rs.10,000/-. As instructed by the opposite party, the battery was brought to the shop of the opposite party and he agreed to replace the same on receiving the new one from the company. He also requested the complainant not to tell the matter to anybody as it would affect his business. But the battery was not replaced. Subsequently opposite party demanded Rs.3000/- more to replace the battery. The complainant has sought for a sum of Rs.28000/- ie. Rs.6200/- for the cost of the battery, Rs.10000/- for the damages caused to the household articles, Rs.10000/- as compensation for the agony undergone etc. 3. In the version filed the appellant/opposite party has alleged that recharging was necessitated due to the negligence of the complainant as distilled water was not pored into the battery cells. Hence the service charges was collected. The damages caused to the household articles is denied. It is submitted that battery was brought to the opposite party in a broken state. It was admitted by the complainant that he tried to lift the battery without disconnecting the electrodes and hence the circuit got short and the battery happened to fall down from the hands of the complainant. On examination it was found that the battery is beyond repair. As the guarantee period is not over the opposite party tried to get replacement but the distributor informed that replacing is not possible. 4. Evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1 and Exts. P1 to P4 and R1 to R5. 5. The contention stressed by the appellant is that Forum declined his application filed to implead the manufacturer. According to him the manufacturer is a necessary party. We find that from the order on the impleading petition that the impleading petition was not allowed as it was belated . The Forum has also mentioned in the above order that the petitioner/opposite party will be at liberty to proceed against the distributor under the general law and in terms of their agreement. On a perusal of the proceedings paper of the Forum it is seen that the application to implead was filed much belated ie after the evidence was over and the witness was recalled and examined. It is seen that on same day the parties were heard. Hence we find that order of the Forum is not liable to be set aside on the above ground. It is seen from the evidence adduced that the battery got damaged within the warranty period. The contention that the circuit got short on account of the negligence of the complainant is not supported by any evidence except the version in Ext.P4 reply notice sent by the opposite party. As noted by the Forum the bursting of the battery is not disputed. It is seen that even the petition filed by the opposite party is for impleading the distributor. Evidently it is represented that the battery is an imported one. Hence the contention in the appeal memorandum that the manufacturer and the distributor ought to have been made parties envisages an impossible situation. It is admitted that the battery got damaged with in the warranty period. On a perusal of the judgment of the Forum we find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum . In the circumstance we find that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence the appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER ps
......................JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU
......................SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN
......................SRI.M.A.ABDULLA SONA | | 
