DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC No. 23 of 16.01.2008<br /> Decided on : 24-06-2008<br /> <br /> Pritpal Kumar S/o Sh. Roshan Lal, R/o Village Ghudda, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.Shree Ganesh Battery House, Hanuman Chowk, G.T. Road, Bathinda, through its Proprietor/Partner.<br /> 2.M.D. Exide House, Exide Industries Limited (Registered Office) 59E, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata -700020.<br /> ...Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM :<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Bansi Lal Sachdeva, Advocate.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Ashok Bharti, Advocate. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT<br /> 1. An Exide Battery-450 of 3X6 13634 was purchased by the complainant from opposite party No. 1 for a consideration of Rs. 7,000/- vide bill No. 2825 dated 19.7.07 on the basis of tall claims made by it. He was assured that in case any defect creeps in it, it would be replaced. It was purchased for the purposes of running the Inverter. It continued creating problems since the date of its purchase. Inverter was not functioning properly with this Battery. It (Battery) stopped working. Its power never became on. Matter was brought to the notice of opposite party No. 1. Ultimately, its representative came to check it. He had told that there is manufacturing defect in it and matter would be taken up with opposite party No. 2 which is its manufacturer. There was no response from the opposite parties. He alleges that the act and conduct of the opposite parties has caused him mental tension. His reputation has been lowered in the society. In these circumstances, this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as 'Act') has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to refund him the price of the Battery i.e. Rs. 7,000/- alongwith interest; pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental tension and harassment besides cost of the complaint.<br /> 2. Opposite parties filed separate replies of the complaint taking legal objections that complainant has got no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint; complainant is not consumer; he has concealed material facts from this Forum and has not come to this Forum with clean hands. Inter-alia their plea is that complainant had come to opposite party No. 1 on 17.12.07 with the complaint that Battery is not functioning properly. After its technical checking, it was found okay. Its voltage was low which could be due to defect in the Inverter or low supply of electricity. Complainant was told by opposite party No. 1 that it would charge the Battery with its equipment in full and that he should collect it within 2-3 days. Recharging is not covered under the purview of the guarantee. Opposite party No. 1 can charge the amount for charging the Battery. Accordingly Battery was collected. It was having 2.06 Voltage whereas the voltage should be 12.00. It was the duty of the complainant to maintain it. He was supposed to clean it and check the water within short intervals i.e. after every 2-3 months or as per load of the Battery and fill the water as per requirement. Despite repeated requests, complainant did not collect the Battery within 2-3 days. He had come on 22.1.08 and picked up a quarrel. Battery was received by him against signatures on claim form. They deny the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 3. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, complainant has produced in evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-4), affidavit of Sh. Lachmi Narain @ Lachman (Ex. C-1), photocopy of report dated 27.2.08 (Ex. C-2), photocopy of application (Ex. C-3), photocopy of retail invoice (Ex. C-5) and photocopy of receipt (Ex. C-6).<br /> 4. In rebuttal, on behalf of the opposite parties two affidavits of S/Sh. Kailash Chand and Vineet Garg (Ex. R-1 & Ex. R-2) respectively and photocopy of Certificate of Sh. Vineet Garg (Ex. R-3) have been tendered in evidence.<br /> 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 6. Mr. Bansi Lal, learned counsel for the complainant argued that there is manufacturing defect in the Battery purchased by the complainant vide bill copy of which is Ex. C-5. It was taken to opposite party No. 1 on 17.12.07 as is evident from copy of the receipt Ex. C-6 but the defect could not be removed. To support it, he drew our attention to the affidavit Ex. C-1 of Sh. Lachmi Narain @ Lachman and the affidavit Ex. C-4 of the complainant. He further argued that the matter was also inquired into by the Police as Vineet Kumar S/o Sh. Kailash Chand, proprietor of opposite party No. 1 had made the complaint. Copy of the police report is Ex. C-2. Complainant had also submitted an application to the Senior Superintendent of Police and copy of the same is Ex. C-3.<br /> 7. Mr. Bharti, learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. There is no defect much less manufacturing defect in the Battery. <br /> 8. We have considered the respective arguments.<br /> 9. Manufacturing defect is the one which exists in a product during the process of its manufacturing. Complainant has made an attempt to prove his version by way of submitting the affidavit Ex. C-1 of Sh. Lachmi Narain @ Lachman who has stated that he is doing the work of Batteries for the last more than 15 years and that he had checked the Battery brought by the complainant. It was put for charging for about 20/25 hours but the same could not be charged. There was manufacturing defect in it. No weight can be attached to his this affidavit. He has not disclosed his educational qualifications. Similarly he does not state how many Exide Batteries he has checked and examined. He has simply stated that there was manufacturing defect in the Battery. No particular manufacturing defect has been pointed out by him. No date has been disclosed as to when the Battery was brought to him by the complainant and when it was returned. His this affidavit stands amply rebutted with the affidavit of Sh. Vineet Garg. No doubt he is the son of Sh. Kailash Chand Proprietor of opposite party. This itself is no ground to discard his affidavit. He is Diploma holder in Electronics from Punjab State Board of Technical Education and Industrial Training. Twice he has received practical training from Exide Industries Kolkata. He has full technical knowledge regarding the Batteries of all types. Photocopy of his Diploma Certificate is Ex. R-3. He is also working as Manager with opposite party No. 1. Technical checking of the Battery was done by him and it was found okay. Admittedly, Battery was brought to opposite party No. 1 by the complainant on 17.12.07. According to Ex. R-2 its voltage was low and it could be due to defect in the Inverter or low supply of electricity. When Battery was received, it was having 2.06 voltage while the same is required to be 12.00. Sh. Kailash Chand has supported his version in his affidavit Ex. R-1. Affidavit of the complainant stands bracketted with his affidavit. Ex. R-1 also gets corroboration from Ex. R-2. Expert opinion expressed by Sh. Vineet Garg is worth placing credence. Complainant alleges that representative of opposite party No. 1 had told that there is manufacturing defect in the Battery. He does not disclose the name of that representative. Hence his this plea has not gone beyond the stage of averment. Battery was purchased on 19.7.07. Evidence establishes that it was brought to opposite party No. 1 on 17.12.07. Had there been manufacturing defect in it and creating problems since the date of purchase, complainant would not have sit folded handed. He must have knocked the door of opposite party No. 1 time and again for getting the alleged problem rectified. From this, inference is that Battery continued working properly on account of which complainant remained mum. True that on the basis of application moved by Sh. Vineet Garg, matter was enquired into by S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda. This itself does not establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Onus to prove the deficiency is upon the complainant. He is required to establish it by way of leading cogent and convincing evidence. He has failed to lead such evidence. No deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is proved.<br /> 10. In the light of the discussion made above, crux of the matter is that complaint is meritless. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. <br /> Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 24-06-2008 (Lakhbir Singh )<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet) <br /> Member<br /> 'iki' <br />