Punjab

Bhatinda

CC/13/330

Anit Kumar Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shree Ganesh Battery House - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Aggarwal

28 Oct 2013

ORDER

 
Complaint Case No. CC/13/330
 
1. Anit Kumar Aggarwal
son of Late sh.Mukand Lal Aggarwal, r/o 2030 A, The Mall, Bathinda
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Shree Ganesh Battery House
Hanuman chowk, G.T.Road, Bathidna through its Manager/A/P
2. Service Centre
Luminous Power Technologies pvt. ltd Gali n o.4, Bachitra Nagar, gill road, Near GNE College Ludhiana, Punjab through its A.P.
3. Lu;miniouis Power Technologies pvt. ltd.
C-8, & C-9. Community centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058 through its MD Shri Manish Pant.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HONABLE MRS. Vikramjit Kaur Soni PRESIDENT
 HONABLE MR. Amarjeet Paul MEMBER
 HONABLE MRS. Sukhwinder Kaur MEMBER
 
PRESENT:Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA.

 

CC.No.330 of 13-08-2013

 

Decided on 28-10-2013

 

Anit Kumar Aggarwal aged about 55 years S/o Late Sh.Mukand Lal Aggarwal R/o #2030-A, The Mall, Bathinda.

 

........Complainant

 

Versus

 

1.Shree Ganesh Battery House, Hanuman Chowk, G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Manager/Authorized Person.

 

2.Service Centre, Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Gali No.4, Bachitra Nagar, Gill Road, near GNE College, Ludhiana, Punjab, through its Authorized Person.

 

3.Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., C-8 & C-9, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, through its Managing Director Shree Manish Pant.

 


 

 

.......Opposite parties

 


 

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 


 

 

QUORUM

 

Smt.Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President.

 

Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member.

 

Smt.Sukhwinder Kaur, Member.

 

Present:-

 

For the Complainant: Sh.Gaurav Aggarwal, counsel for complainant.

 

For Opposite parties: Sh.Ramjit Dass Garg, counsel for the opposite party No.1.

 

Sh.Inder Pal Singh, A.R of the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

 

ORDER

 


 

 

VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-

 

1. The instant complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date (Here-in-after referred to as an 'Act') by the complainant. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant has purchased a luminous battery bearing serial No.193213 from the opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.10300 dated 2.6.2012 for Rs.9200/-. The actual cost of the said battery was Rs.11,500/- but the complainant gave his old battery for Rs.2300/- to the opposite party No.1 and after adjusting the amount of the old battery invoice No.10300 dated 2.6.2012 was issued to him, he made the payment to the opposite party No.1 vide cheque No.383535 dated 2.6.2012 drawn on Canara Bank, The Mall, Bathinda that was encashed on 5.6.2012. The abovesaid battery stopped working within 15 days of its purchase. The complainant made the opposite party No.1 aware from this fact, it advised him to handover the abovesaid battery to it so that the same may be sent to the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2. Accordingly, the complainant handed over the abovesaid battery to the opposite party No.1 and the same was returned to him after 10-15 days. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to replace the abovesaid battery as the same was within the warranty period and as per warranty card the abovesaid battery can be replaced in case of defect occurs within 12 months from the date of the purchase but the opposite party No.1 declined his request on the false pretext. In the first week of May, 2013, the abovesaid battery stopped working and again the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite party No.1 and the abovesaid battery was handed over to the opposite party No.1 for repair with service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 and the same was returned in the last week of May, 2013 after repair and the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the problem would not occur again in the abovesaid battery. Again in the first week of June, 2013 the abovesaid battery went out of order and the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to replace the same but his request was declined by it. However the opposite party No.1 asked the complainant once again to handover the abovesaid battery for repair and accordingly he handed over the same to the opposite party No.1 for repair as he had no other alternative. After 10-15 days, the complainant visited the shop of the opposite party No.1 and enquired about the abovesaid battery and was shocked when the opposite party No.1 handover the copy of the delivery challan No.DC 135LD2000160 dated 14.5.2013 of a battery pertaining to some other customer namely 'Kansal Trading Company Munish Kumar, bus stand road, near PWD office, Rampura Phul, Punjab' which depicts the abovesaid battery was in good condition and the same has been delivered in the month of May, 2013. The complainant made the opposite party No.1 aware of the fact that the abovesaid delivery challan dated 14.5.2013 pertains to some other customer and he did not receive any battery, the opposite party No.1 misbehaved with him in front of his employees and advised him not to visit its shop again. The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to return the abovesaid battery or he would knock the door of this Forum. The complainant has also got served a registered legal notice dated 20.7.2013 to the opposite party No.1. Hence the complainant has filed the present complaint to seek the directions to the opposite parties to refund the consideration amount of the abovesaid battery to the tune of Rs.11,500/- alongwith interest, cost and compensation.

 

2. Notice by hand/dasti has been sent to the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 after appearing before this Forum has filed its written statement and admitted the purchase of the abovesaid battery on 2.6.2012 from it, the dealer of the Luminous batteries through companies' distributor M/s Kansal Trading Company, Rampura Phul. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1 on 2.5.2013 with the abovesaid battery i.e. almost after 11 months from the date of its purchase and not after 15 days of its purchase as alleged by him. In fact, the complainant had never approached the opposite party No.1 with any complaint regarding the abovesaid battery before 2.5.2013. The abovesaid battery was checked in the presence of the complainant and was found to be working normally and the same was confirmed to him but he refused to accept the inspection report of the opposite party No.1 and insisted to send the abovesaid battery to the company for the inspection and replacement. On persistent demand of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 agreed to send the abovesaid battery to the company only for his entire satisfaction. The claim form No.4270 dated 2.5.2013 was prepared and on the request of the complainant, as a goodwill gesture, the opposite party No.1 provided a service battery (with no cost/rent) to him as a stop gap/make shift arrangement. The complainant promised to return the service battery as and when the battery in question was received back from the company. The opposite party No.1 sent the abovesaid battery to the distributor of the company, it further sent to the company as per the company norms. The battery in question was checked by the company and was found OK. The company returned the abovesaid battery vide challan No.DC135 ID 2000160 dated 15.5.2013 and the same was intimated to the complainant. The complainant took the abovesaid battery from the opposite party No.1 on 28.5.2013 but the service battery has not been returned till date to the opposite party No.1. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 on 5.6.2013 with the complaint of improper functioning of the battery in question and insisted that the opposite party No.1 should replace the same with a new one as per the warranty. The battery in question was again checked in the presence of the complainant and was found to be working normally. The opposite party No.1 showed its inability to replace the abovesaid battery in the absence of any defect. Moreover the replacement of the defective battery can be done only on the direction/consideration of the company after due inspection by the company, the opposite party No.1 has no authority to replace the battery in question. On persistent demand of the complainant, the opposite party No.1, though fully satisfied with the inspection done, agreed to resend the abovesaid battery to the company for re-checking and the same was sent again to the distributor M/s Kansal Trading Company, Rampura Phul on 24.6.2013. The abovesaid battery was again found OK as per the company norms and ageing test of the abovesaid battery and the same was received by the opposite party No.1 and the complainant was informed about the same but he refused to collect the abovesaid battery and the same is lying with the opposite party No.1 till date. The copy of the challan was handed over to the complainant in the last week of May, 2013 and the same was in the name of Mr.Munish Kumar Proprietor/Partner of M/s Kansal Trading Company, distributor of Luminous batteries and the battery No.193213 is reported at Sr.No.4 of the delivery challan. The complainant never visited the shop after the last week of June till date for collecting the battery in question and to return the service battery to the opposite party No.1. No defect was found either by the opposite party No.1 or by the company.

 

3. Registered notice was sent to the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 on 27.8.2013 and the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 after appearing before this Forum have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that the abovesaid battery is manufactured by the opposite party No.3 under the most stringent quality control standards, supervision and checks and the opposite party No.2 is the service centre of the opposite party No.3. The abovesaid battery was put into its optimum use of level and has been working continuously and smoothly and worked for pretty long period and gave uninterrupted service to the complainant till May, 2013. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 checked the abovesaid battery on 8.5.2013 and found/tested OK as shown in claim processing report dated 13.5.2013. In the battery test report, back up time of the abovesaid battery is 2.40h, which is absolutely perfect for working. The complainant has already received the abovesaid battery from the opposite party No.1 and the same is tested OK by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3, therefore there is no cause of action on the part of the complainant to file the present complaint against the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The opposite party No.2 has received the product in question from the distributor M/s Kansal Trading on 8.5.2013 and the same was handed over to the distributor on dated 14.5.2013 for further return with remarks 'battery tested OK' to the opposite party No.1.

 

4. The parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

 

5. Arguments heard. The record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

 

6. Admittedly, the complainant has purchased a luminous battery bearing serial No.193213 from the opposite party No.1 vide invoice No.10300 dated 2.6.2012 for Rs.9200/-. The actual cost of the said battery was Rs.11,500/- but the complainant gave his old battery for Rs.2300/- to the opposite party No.1 and after adjusting the amount of the old battery the invoice No.10300 dated 2.6.2012 was issued to him, he made the payment to the opposite party No.1 vide cheque No.383535 dated 2.6.2012 drawn on Canara Bank, The Mall, Bathinda that was encashed on 5.6.2012.

 

7. The submission of the complainant is that the above mentioned battery stopped working within 15 days of its purchase. The complainant approached the opposite party No.1, it advised him to handover the abovesaid battery to it so that the same may be sent to the service centre i.e. opposite party No.2. The complainant handed over the abovesaid battery to the opposite party No.1 and the same was returned to him after 10-15 days but the abovesaid battery was not working The complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to replace the abovesaid battery as the same was within the warranty period and as per warranty card the abovesaid battery can be replaced in case the defect will be found within 12 months from the date of purchase but the opposite party No.1 declined his request. In the first week of May, 2013, the abovesaid battery stopped working and the complainant informed the opposite party No.1 and the abovesaid battery was handed over to the opposite party No.1 for repair with service centre i.e. opposite party No.2 and the same was returned in the last week of May, 2013 after repair and the opposite party No.1 assured the complainant that the problem would not occur again in the abovesaid battery. But again in the first week of June, 2013 the abovesaid battery went out of order and the complainant requested the opposite party No.1 to replace the same but the opposite party No.1 failed to accede to his request. After 10-15 days, when the complainant did not get any intimation from the opposite parties, he visited the shop of the opposite party No.1 and enquired about the abovesaid battery and was shocked when the opposite party No.1 handover the copy of the delivery challan No.DC- 135LD2000160 dated 14.5.2013 of a battery pertaining to some other customer showing the abovesaid battery was in good condition and the same has been delivered in the month of May, 2013. As the above mentioned delivery challan dated 14.5.2013 belongs to some other person, so the complainant did not receive the abovesaid battery but the opposite parties have failed to handover his own battery to the complainant.

 

8. The submission of the opposite party No.1 is that the complainant approached it on 2.5.2013 with the abovesaid battery i.e. almost after 11 months from the date of its purchase and not after 15 days of its purchase. The abovesaid battery was checked in the presence of the complainant and was found to be working normally but under charge. The abovesaid battery was received and the claim form No.4270 dated 2.5.2013 was prepared. As a goodwill gesture, the service battery No.09024 H was provided to the complainant that after doing the necessary charging i.e. filling the water level and removing the rust of the terminals. The complainant was requested to receive his battery but he refused to accept the inspection report of the opposite party No.1 and insisted to send the abovesaid battery to the company for the inspection and replacement. On persistent demand of the complainant, the opposite party No.1 agreed to send the abovesaid battery to the company only for his satisfaction. Keeping in view the inconvenience of the complainant a service battery was given to the complainant through company's distributor M/s Kansal Trading Company, Rampura Phul. The abovesaid battery is still in working condition and tested OK. In the claim processing report and test report, back up time of the abovesaid battery is 2.40h, which is absolutely perfect for working. The abovesaid battery was sent back to the distributor vide delivery challan No.DC-135LD2000160 dated 14.5.2013 and the same was intimated to the complainant. The complainant took the abovesaid battery from the opposite party No.1 on 28.5.2013 but the service battery has not been returned till date to the opposite party No.1. The delivery challan No.DC-135LD2000160 dated 14.5.2013 was of a battery pertaining to another customer namely M/s Kansal Trading Company Munish Kumar, bus stand road, Rampura Phul, which shows that the abovesaid battery was in good condition and the same has been delivered in the month of May, 2013. Ex.C2 i.e. battery pertains to another customer, the complainant did not receive the same, whereas as per para No.3 of the complaint the abovesaid battery was returned in the last week of May, 2013. The battery in question is at Sr. No.3 of the challan No.DC-135LD2000160 dated 14.5.2013. On 4.6.2013 the abovesaid battery was again brought at the shop of the opposite party No.1. The abovesaid battery is still in the working condition but keeping in view to maintain the cordial relation with the customer, the abovesaid battery was received and taken on record vide claim form No.4317 dated 4.6.2013. The abovesaid battery was tested at the shop by putting the full load on it and was found OK. In the battery test report, back up time of the abovesaid battery is 2.40h, which is absolutely perfect for working. The complainant was time and again requested to take his battery but he refused to take the same and insisted the opposite party No.1 for the replacement of the abovesaid battery. The opposite party No.1 was fully satisfied with the working of the abovesaid battery and was not authorized to replace the same as per the warranty card. Under pressure the abovesaid battery was again sent to the company's distributor M/s Kansal Trading Company and was received back on 28.6.2013 in the revived condition with the remarks that 'as per company norms and as per ageing, the battery was found OK'. But the complainant refused to accept the same and has not returned the service battery till date. The battery in question is still lying at the shop of the opposite party No.1.

 

9. The opposite party Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the abovesaid battery was put into its optimum use of level and has been working continuously and smoothly and worked for pretty long period and gave uninterrupted service to the complainant till May, 2013. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 checked the abovesaid battery on 8.5.2013 and found/tested OK as shown in claim processing report dated 13.5.2013. In the battery test report, back up time of the abovesaid battery is 2.40h, which means the abovesaid battery was working perfectly. The complainant has already received the abovesaid battery from the opposite party No.1 and the same is tested OK by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The opposite party No.2 has received the product in question from the distributor M/s Kansal Trading on 8.5.2013 and the same has been handed over to the distributor on dated 14.5.2013 for further return with the remarks 'battery tested OK' to the opposite party No.1.

 

10. A perusal of record placed on file shows that vide Ex.C4 dated 14.5.2013 remarks are given on the job sheet 'battery found OK (while testing reserved battery)'. Further Ex.OP2/2 shows that fault code:-battery revived; recommendation by service centre:-rejected, remarks:-found OK'. Vide Ex.OP2/3, on dated 8.5.2013 the abovesaid battery was found in down condition and the battery back time recorded as 2 hours 40 minutes. Himanshu Kumar Balajee, Deputy Manager-Legal of M/s Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. has deposed in his affidavit, Ex.OP3/2 in para No.8 'That battery, which was picked up by opposite party No.2 on 8.5.2013 for testing, is still in working condition and tested O.K as shown in claim processing report dated 13.5.2013 and also in Battery test report of opposite party No.2. In battery test report, back up time of battery is 2.40h, which is absolutely perfect for working.....'. He further deposed 'That the complainant has already received the battery from opposite party No.1 and the same tested OK by opposite party No.2....'.

 

11. On the contrary the complainant has not placed on file any expert evidence or any other documentary evidence to prove that the battery is not still working. Moreover the complainant has also failed to point out that what should be the charging time of the battery and for how long it can remain charged. We have observed that whenever the complainant has approached the opposite parties with his complaint regarding the battery, the battery was having low charging.

 

12. Thus from the facts, circumstances and evidence placed on file we are of the considered opinion that the battery in question was checked by the company and found OK. The company returned the abovesaid battery vide challan No.DC135 ID 2000160 dated 15.5.2013 and the same was intimated to the complainant. The complainant took the abovesaid battery from the opposite party No.1 on 28.5.2013 but the service battery has not been returned till date to the opposite party No.1. The complainant again approached the opposite party No.1 on 5.6.2013 with the complaint of improper functioning of the battery in question and insisted that the opposite party No.1 should replace the same with a new one as per the warranty. The battery in question was again checked in the presence of the complainant and was found working normally. The opposite party No.1 cannot replace the battery in question in the absence of any defect in it. As and when the complainant made any complaint regarding his battery, the same was duly attended to. When the abovesaid battery was checked on 8.5.2013 by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 and found/tested OK as shown in claim processing report and in the battery test report. In the battery test report, back up time of the abovesaid battery is 2.40h, which is absolutely perfect for working. The complainant has already received the abovesaid battery from the opposite party No.1 and the same is tested OK by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 have received the product in question from the distributor M/s Kansal Trading on 8.5.2013 and the same was handed over to the distributor on dated 14.5.2013 for further return with the remarks 'battery tested OK'. On 24.6.2013, considering the request of the complainant, again the abovesaid battery was sent to the distributor M/s Kansal Trading Company and when the abovesaid battery was tested, it was found OK. The back up time of the abovesaid battery is 2.40h which is absolutely perfect. The service battery has been provided to the complainant as a stop gap/make shift arrangement. The service battery is still lying in the possession of the complainant and as per the version of the opposite party No.1 the complainant has not turned to collect his battery, it is lying with the opposite party No.1 in the repair condition. However, the complainant can collect the abovesaid battery from the opposite party No.1 and return the service battery if not returned yet.

 

13. Therefore in view of what has been discussed above there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus this complaint is hereby dismissed without any order as to cost.

 

14. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

 

Pronounced in open Forum (Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

 

28-10-2013 President

 


 

 

(Amarjeet Paul) (Sukhwinder Kaur)

 

Member Member

 

 
 
[HONABLE MRS. Vikramjit Kaur Soni]
PRESIDENT
 
[HONABLE MR. Amarjeet Paul]
MEMBER
 
[HONABLE MRS. Sukhwinder Kaur]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.