Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted thathe purchased an Inverter Battery from op nos. 1 & 2 on 05.05.2010 on payment of Rs. 14,500/- vide Bill No. 1211 dated 03.05.2010 and there is overall warrantee of one year for the set but 4 years warrantee for the battery and provision of home service and after purchase, the complainant took the said set to his village house at Vill& P.O. – Gopal Nagar at Purulia District.  But after installation, the battery got defective/inactive after 3 months.  So, complainant made contact with the seller op nos. 1 & 2 over phone for redressal.

          Op nos. 1 & 2 supplied the complainant a phone No. 9874278713 for redressal of the problem.  Complainant as per direction of the op nos. 1 & 2 made a contact for such phone number for removal of the defects of the battery.  But complainant was told by that fellow from that phone that they did not work/repair for the Microtech D.G. Power.  So, complainant again made contact with the op seller and apprised them of the situation and complainant was assured that matter shall be taken up shortly.  Thereafter ops were persuaded and represented many times for the redressal of the problem.  But no result was received by the complainant.  At last complainant was compelled to deliver the defective set to the seller op nos. 1 & 2 on 15.11.2010 by hiring a car from the far of Purullia for their immediate solution of the problem.

          Thereafter complainant has been keeping contact with the ops but long standing problem has not been solved by the ops and being disgusted and dissatisfied with the actions/inaction and behavior of the ops, complainant lodged a complaint with the Director of CA & FBP, Govt. of West Bengal on 04.09.2012 for redressal of such long standing problem and the said office arranged a tripartite mediation meeting thrice for the solution of the problems amicably but no fruitful result can be achieved,though op participated in the mediation meeting.

          Thereafter op issued a letter on 17.10.2012 addressed to the Govt. Office with a copy to the complainant denying the bonafide and genuine grievances and claim of complainant and for the said action and inaction on the part of the ops, complainant suffered much and for deficient manner and service, complainant has filed this case for redressal and the cause of action arose first on 03.01.2010 and it was continued till the date.

          On the other hand ops by filing written version has submitted that according to the terms and conditions mentioned in the warrantee card and also according General Customary Rules, all liabilities relating to defects in the materials in this case the battery rests on the manufacturer and not on the retailer.  But M/s. Shree Ambalika Stores through Sri Dhananjoy Acharya, its duly authorized representative took all steps to help the complainant by supplying him with phone numbers etc.  Not only thisM/s. Shree Ambalika Stores also retained the damaged battery and got it replace by the dealer.  After getting replaced, the complainant was called several times over phone to come and collect the damaged battery, but he did not do so and as such laches on the part of the complainant does not hold good to make the op no.1 liable in any way and in the circumstances, op no.1 prayed for dismissal of this case.

          On the other hand op no.2 by filing written statement submitted as soon as op no.2 was informed of the situation of the complainant, he took proper and necessary steps, retained the same and in due persons forwarded it to the manufacturing company namely M/s. Digi Power, the op no.3 and after the battery was duly serviced by the manufacturer and returned to the op no.2 and he immediately informed of it to the complainant who turned down after several days to take the battery  and thereby informed the op no.2 that he has already taken a new battery and declined to take the old serviced one and the concerned battery as still lying with the op no.2.  Op no.2 is and was only acting as staff of M/s. Shree Ambalika Stores and op nos. 1 & 2 cannot be made a party in this case on an “in person” basis.

          It is further submitted that in the warranty card that all expenses relating to transportation of the battery in any and every circumstances will have to be borne by the customer only and as such no liability accrued on the manufacturing company op no.2 and in this regard it is also stated that liability in any and every circumstances accrued the manufacturing company only according to the provision stated in the warranty card and so the complainant has appeared before this Forum without any clean hand and the instant petition can be redressed by Honour’s court as it was clearly mentioned in the warranty card that any complaint will be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court and op no.2 begs to adduce further points at the time of hearing that the present complaint should be dismissed.

Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the complaint, written version and also materials on record, it is proved that complainant purchased the same battery along with inverter.  Truth is that there was 4 years warrantee for the battery and provision of home service.  Fact remains that the said battery became defective/inactive after 3 months.  Admittedly the matter was reported to op nos. 1 & 2 and op nos. 1 & 2 supplied one phone number but that fellow did not attend it and battery was not repaired. So, ultimately complainant was compelled to deliver the defective set of the said battery on 15.11.2010 to op nos. 1 & 2.

          Fact remains that the battery is still in existence of op nos. 1 & 2.  But it is found that op nos. 1 & 2 immediately did not repair the same and did not supply.  But op no.2 has tried to say that he was absent and was at Mumbai for treatment of his wife and for which his employee was present there.  But it is admitted by the op no.2 that in the warrantee card, signature of op no.2 was there who was acting as representative of op no.1.

          But peculiar factor is that ops have not stated the names of the service center who shall have to give service in respect of battery and fact remains that as per warranty, home service shall be given by the manufacturer and the seller also because seller op no.2 signed in the said warrantee card on behalf of op no.1.  So, it is the liability of the op nos. 1 & 2 to give proper service and fact remains that ops have failed to give any satisfactory explanation in the written statement actually on which date the battery was repaired and was made ready for delivery.  Ops have also failed to show that complainant was informed by a letter to receive it but complainant did not receive it. 

          So, considering the above fact, we are convinced to hold that ops have failed to prove by any cogent evidence that as per warrantee card signed by op nos. 1 & 2, complainant got proper service and the battery was repaired and replaced within time and complainant was informed to receive it.

          So, considering of the above fact and materials, we are convinced to hold that op nos. 1 & 2 including the Manager of the Digi Power, the manufacturer are not only negligent and also deficient in rendering their service and harassed the complainant.  But fact remains that complainant’s house is at Purullia District and that battery was purchased with a hope to get service but that battery did not give service after 3 months and most interesting factor is that the complainant brought the said battery weighing 20 Kg. from Purullia District and deposited to the op nos. 1 & 2 on 15.11.2010.  But till filing of this complaint on 16.06.2014 about the status of the battery, there was no specific reminder on the part of the ops and not only that before CA & FBP, ops appeared and they admitted that they are willing to pay Rs. 20,000/- out of the battery price of Rs. 23,514/-.  But complainant did not accept it for which the mediation meeting failed.

          So, considering that fact, it is clear that we are convinced to hold that ops have their laches, negligence for which ops intended to pay Rs. 20,000/- that means the battery which was purchased by the complainant from the op nos. 1 & 2 was defective which is proved.  Truth is that no new battery was replaced by the op nos. 1 & 2.  Fact remains that in such a situation and due to hot weather of Purullia, complainant was compelled to purchase a new battery.  So, at present complainant has no need of replacement of the disputed battery and if complainant receives that battery it cannot be used for any purpose and it shall be a burden to the complainant.

          So, considering the above fact and also considering the entire material, we are convinced to hold that as per warrantee no service was given by the seller, dealer and the manufacturer to the complainant, though complainant paid Rs. 23,500/- at the time of purchase of the same on 03.05.2010.

          Another factor is that battery was purchased on 03.05.2010 and thereafter the battery became defective within 3 months it was deposited on 15.11.2010 and even after filing of the complaint before the CA & FBP, op did not try to show their corporate responsibility, business responsibility and to give proper service to the complainant as per warrantee that is no doubt negligence and deficient manner of service  and fact remains that one cannot believe that a person shall have to spend money for purchasing battery for inverter and after purchase for long 4 years he has not got the service of the ops but as per warrantee complainant is entitled to get any relief from the ops and most interesting factor is that ops have tried to convince that they are willing to refund Rs. 20,000/- but complainant shall have to get alms from the ops when he paid good money after purchasing to the op. Then it is the duty of the seller, manufacturer to satisfy the consumer at first.  It is their moral and social responsibility as business men and manufacturer but that has not been done or any relief was not given to the complainant for which we are convinced to hold that complainant is entitled to get relief against the ops and ops are jointly and severally shall have to pay Rs. 23,500/- in total that is the price of the battery and also a sum of Rs. 4,500/- as compensation including litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/-.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,000/- against the ops jointly and severally.

          Op nos. 1, 2& 3 jointly and severally are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 23,500/- the price money of the battery and also a compensation of Rs. 4,500/- to the complainant for causing harassment and mental pain and agony to the complainant.  The entire money that is cost of Rs. 5,000/- + price money of Rs. 23,500/- + compensation of Rs. 4,500/- total Rs. 33,000/- shall be paid to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order positively failing which for non-compliance of the Forum’s order, ops jointly and severally shall have to pay penal damages  a the rate Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if it is collected, it shall be deposited to this Forum’s Account even if it is found that ops are reluctant to comply the order of this Forum, in that case, ops shall be prosecuted u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed against them.