Date of Filing: 19.03.2022
Date of Disposal: 05.05.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 05th DAY OF MAY 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.63/2022
PRESENT:
-
SRI.RAJU K.S,
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER
Smt. Kokila Murthy,
W/o. B.S. Krishnamurthy,
Aged about 63 years,
R/t No.47/2, 3rd Model
House Street, Basavanagudi,
(Rep. by Sri.N.Vageesh, Advocate)
… COMPLAINANT.
- V/s -
1) Somashekar,
Proprietor of Vijayalakshmi Auto Batteries,
No.3, Aprameya Building,
Opposite APS College, 3rd cross,
N.R. Colony, Basavanagudi,
Bangalore-560019.
(Rep. by Sri.Shivakumar.P, Advocate)
2) Exide Industries Ltd.,
Exide House, No. 102, 1st Floor,
S.K. Tower, Nelson Square,
Chhindwara Road,
Nagpur-440013.
Represented by its Director.
(Rep. by Sri.Suhas C.S, Advocate)
3) Exide Industries Ltd.,
Exide House, Noor No. 59 E,
Chowringhee Road,
Lala Lajpat Rai Sarani,
Represetned by its Managing Director.
(Rep. by Sri.Suhas C.S, Advocate)
4) Exide Industries Limited,
No.8, 8 A, 1st Floor,
Venkatadri Building,
Hosur Main Road,
Garebvhavi Pallya,
Represented by its Managing Director.
(Rep. by Sri.Suhas C.S, Advocate)
...OPPOSITE PARTIES.
******
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SMT. REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER
01. The present complaint is filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 with a prayer to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.1,24,800/- towards the cost of batteries with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 16.03.2021 and to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony and to grant such other relief as this commission deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.
02. Brief facts of the complaint:-
The complainant is the owner of Reva Electric Car bearing No. KA-05-MK-7170 which is run by battery. In the first week of March-2021 the complainant started facing problems with the said car, as it could not be started. She approached opposite party No.1 who is the dealer. The opposite party No.1 provided a very good batteries of Exide company and also assured that, he would also fix the said batteries to the car of the complainant and to replace with a new batteries in the event of any technical glitches. The complainant by believing the assurance of opposite party No.1 had purchased a car battery bearing type No.6C-225 VAH of the Exide company on 16.03.2021 by making the payment of Rs.1,24,800/- .
02(a). Further in the month of October-2021 the said car started giving problems and on inspection, the mechanic informed the complainant that, the said battery was insufficient and was of a lesser capacity. On account of this, the complainant approached opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 said that, the battery has not been correctly charged and charged the same and gave the same to the complainant and said that, the problem was solved. Even after this, the complainant experienced many problems with the car and ultimately the car stopped and the battery became dead. Again the complainant approached the dealer i.e., opposite party No.1, who took the battery on 19.11.2021 and gave assurance to the complainant that, he would replace the said battery with a new one as the said battery had a guarantee and warranty period. To the shock and surprise, when the complainant approached opposite party No.1 after many days, the opposite party No.1 did not give the battery as assured and kept on giving one or other excuses. The complainant filed a police complaint against the opposite party No.1 with Basavangudi Police station alleging fraud and cheating.
02(b). Since the opposite party No.1 is the dealer, opposite party No.2 to 4 are the manufacturers of the said battery, they are also equally and severally liable for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice and the complainant was constrained to issue legal notice on 24.02.2022. In-spite of service of the said legal notice, the opposite parties neither replied nor complied. All these acts of this opposite parties caused mental agony and financial hardship to the complainant. She left with no other alternative had approached this Commission for the redressal of her grievances under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties. Hence, this complaint.
03. The notice of this complaint was duly served upon the opposite parties. The counsels for the opposite parties had filed detailed version, partly denied the averments made by the complainant. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 contended that, opposite party No.1 was the only retailer, who purchased the Exide batteries from one, Moon Power, Jayanagar, Bangalore, who is the authorized distributor and service provider of the said batteries and sells the same. And also contended that, immediately after receiving the said battery from the complainant, the same was sent to the Moon power. In turn, the Moon power has sent the same to the Exide Trac – Mobile for the service which had issued a letter with recommendation as follows :-
“Found battery terminal full damage, Battery is deep discharge condition, battery and take-up points (nuts and bolts) fully drilling deeply, battery non repairable on this condition, this battery is rejected”.
Further contended that, there is no deficiency in service by the opposite party No.1 and the complainant herself had damaged the battery by installing, repairing the same with non-technical person, and sought to dismiss the complaint with cost for the gross negligence of the complainant.
04. The counsel for opposite party No.2 to 4 contended that, he is the manufacturer of the Exide Battery. The subject batteries were supplied to M/s. Moon Power which is one of the partner distributors of opposite party No. 2 to 4. At the time of the sale, it was specified that, subject batteries are for Golf Cart. When the subject batteries were brought to the inspection at the service station of opposite party No.2 to 4, the designated Technician inspected and gave a detailed report as follows :-
- The subject matter Battery was in deep discharge
condition.
- The subject matter Battery end take up poles were Tampered and modified.
- The subject matter Battery was un-authorizedly reworked.
- Though 6C225 Battery is not recommended to Reva Cars, the subject matter Battery was used in a Reva Car.
- The terminal of the subject matter Battery was completely damaged.
- The subject matter Battery was not in repairable
condition.
On the afore mentioned, it is evident that, the complainant herself re-worked the subject battery by drilling the holes. The subject batteries were not fit for Reva car, is against its recommendation. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with heavy cost.
05. The counsel for the complainant had filed affidavit in the form of evidence in chief and got marked EX.P.1 to EX.P.7 documents. The counsel for the opposite party No.1 filed affidavit in the form of their evidence in chief. The authorized person of opposite party No.2 to 4 who had also filed Affidavit in the form of their evidence and got marked EX.R.1 to EX.R.9 documents.
06. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-
(1) Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the
relief as sought ?
(3) What order ?
07. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
POINT NO.1 : In Affirmative.
POINT NO.2 : Partly in Affirmative.
POINT NO.3 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
POINT NO.1:-
08. PW-1 and RW-1 & RW-2 had re-iterated the facts of the complaint and version in the affidavit evidence in chief with documents etc. It is the case of the complainant who had purchased the subject batteries 8 in number from opposite party No.1 who had issued Invoice in the name of the complainant for a sum of Rs.1,24,800/- i.e., EX-P.6. The said batteries were under the period of guarantee/warrantee as per EX-P7. On perusal of EX-P.6 which is the tax-invoice, it is clearly mentioned that, the opposite party No.1 is the authorized dealer for Exide Batteries, distributors. The point to be noted here is that, the Counsel for the opposite party No.2 to 4 had not made any say on that (authorized dealer for Exide Batteries, distributors). The opposite party No. 2 to 4 are the manufacturers of the subject batteries who had supplied the same to M/s. Moon Power, who is their authorized partner distributor, from whom the opposite party No.1 had purchased the subject batteries and sold it to the complainant. The Complainant gave the subject batteries to the opposite party No.1 when she faced problems like starting of the electric car. Opposite party No.1 neither replaced nor refunded the amount of the subject batteries to the Complainant as assured. He kept on giving false assurances. Opposite party No. 2 to 4 being the manufacturers of the subject batteries had denied the manufacturing defects in the subject batteries. Opposite Party No.2 to 4 have not taken any action against opposite party No.1 regarding the claim of being the authorized dealer for subject batteries as per the Invoice i.e., EX-P.6. On perusal of EX-P.1 to EX-P.7 and EX-R.1 to EX-R.9, we consider opposite party No.2 to No.4 are also accountable to the loss caused to the complainant. It is evident that, the complainant had purchased the subject batteries and suffered the mental agony and financial hardship due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties as enumerated U/S 2(11) and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties as enumerated U/S 2(47) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in Affirmative.
09. POINT NO.2:- The complainant had claimed the amount of Rs.1,24,800/- jointly and severally from the opposite parties towards the cost of the subject batteries with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 16.03.2021 till realization along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- towards mental agony. The complainant to substantiate had produced EX-P.6 i.e., Tax Invoice and EX-P.7 i.e., guarantee certificate of subject batteries. The rate of interest at 24% per annum is an exorbitant one. We consider the opposite parties jointly and severally are liable to pay the claim amount of Rs.1,24,800/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of purchase of the subject batteries i.e. 16.03.2021 to the complainant. In addition the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and financial hardship and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation. Hence, we answer Point No.2 partly In Affirmative.
10. POINT NO.3:- In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed.
The opposite parties jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,24,800/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of purchase of the subject batteries i.e., 16.03.2021 to the complainant till realization.
In addition, the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and financial hardship and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the litigation.
The complainant shall return the subject battery to the opposite parties.
The parties shall comply the order within 30 days. In case opposite parties fail to comply the same within the above said period, the above said amount of Rs.30,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 05th Day of MAY, 2023)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
