Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

          The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against opposite parties seeking payment of Rs.11,200/- each being cost of inverter and batteries; Rs.1,00,000/- each for mental agony and suffering and for costs.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

          The complainants are father and son.  The 1^st opposite party is an authorized dealer of Exide batteries and microtech inverters.  The complainants approached the 1^st opposite party for purchasing exide battery and microtech inverters.   The 1^st opposite party stated that globatt battery is the product of exide battery and works well and there is a provision for replacement in case of defect.   The complainants believing the words of the 1^st opposite party on 15-03-11 purchased two globatt batteries 9264 and 8375 for Rs.7,000/- each and microtech UPS for Rs.4,200/- each.   Those batteries gave proper power supply for two months only.  Thereafter the complainants on many occasions approached the 1^st opposite party complaining their grievance.  The 1^st opposite party gave evasive replies and caused mental stress to the complainants.   The 1^st opposite party supplied defective batteries and defective inverters.   The 1^st opposite party in order to cause loss to the complainants and to gain himself illegally sold those instruments as if they were the products of exide industries.   The opposite parties thus cheated the complainants.   The 1^st opposite party gave reply with false allegations to the notice issued by the complainants.  The complainant’s health also suffered due to non function of inverters.   The complainants estimated their suffering at Rs.1,00,000/- each.  The complaint therefore be allowed.                    

3.   The 2^nd opposite party remained exparte.

4.  The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is hereunder:

          The 1^st opposite party is an authorised dealer of exide batteries and retail party of microtech inverters.  The 1^st complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for purchasing a battery and an inverter.   The 1^st opposite party replied that there was no stock of exide battery.   Three days later the 1^st complainant approached the 1^st opposite party and enquired about globatt battery.   After discussing with other customers the 1^st complainant purchased globatt batteries and inverters.   The warranty card is very clear about the manufacturers of globatt batteries.   The complainants at their own interest purchased globatt batteries and inverters.   The warranty card contained regarding usage of above articles and load to be connected.   The warranty for battery is 1½ year and 2 years for the inverter.   Service engineer and electrician of the 1^st opposite party installed the battery and inverter as per precautions in the bed room.   The battery and inverter worked for eleven months.  After that the 1^st complainant shifted the battery and the inverter into the kitchen while the 2^nd complainant shifted them on the iron safe without notice of the 1^st opposite party.  Later the complainants got repaired the inverters with a private mechanic.   The 1^st opposite party also observed that the complainants connected extra load to inverters.  The battery spoiled due to deep discharge.   The complainants informed the defect of the above goods in the last days of February, 2012.  The 1^st opposite party immediately responded for service and observed shifting and opening of the inverters.    The complainants violated rules of warranty, damaged the battery and inverters with their own accord and with non technical man service.  The 1^st opposite party tried his best for helping the complainants within its purview.  But the complainants refused.   The complainants did not place any material to show the defect of articles by a qualified technician.   The 1^st opposite party is only entitled to a mere margin of Rs.500/- of sale price.   Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are false and are invented by the complainants to suit their case.  The 1^st opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

5.   Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of complainant and no documents were marked on behalf of 1^st opposite party.  

6.    Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled to any compensation?
3. To what relief?

7.   Admitted facts in this case are these:

a. The complainants purchased inverters and batteries on 15-03-11 (Exs.A-1 and A-2) from the 1^st opposite party.

          b. The 1^st opposite party gave warranty card for both the inverters and                  batteries (Exs.A-3 to A-6).

          c. Exchange of notices between the complainant and the 1^st opposite                              party (Ex.A-7 and A-8).

 8.   POINT No.1:-    The 1^st opposite party furnished Exs.A-3 and A-4 warranty cards to the complainant relating to batteries on the date of purchase itself, likewise inverters (Exs.A-5 and A-6).    In Exs.A-3 and A-4 it was mentioned that the 2nd opposite party was the manufacturer of globatt batteries.   Exs.A-5 and A-6 revealed that microtech international private limited was the manufacturer of UPS or inverters.   Under those circumstances, the 1^st opposite party either cheating or misleading that the articles covered by Exs.A-1 and A-2 were manufactured by M/s Exide company cannot be accepted.  

9.    The terms and conditions mentioned in Exs.A-3 to A-6 are binding on the complainant and the 1^st opposite party.   The relevant portion in Ex.A-3 and A-4 is extracted below for better appreciation:

          a) Flat warranty: Batteries failed under warranty only due to                                 manufacturing defect (mishandling or misuse not eligible)                           within 18 months from the date of sale will be replaced free of                          cost.  

          b) Pro-rata warranty: Pro-rata warranty will be settled as per following:

          18F+18P

           i)    1 – 18 months free replacement

           ii)  19-21 months 50% discount on prevailing MRP

          iii)  22-24 months 45% discount on prevailing MRP

          iv)  22-24 months 45% discount on prevailing MRP

          v)   25-27 months 35% discount on prevailing MRP

          vi)  28-30 months 25% discount on prevailing MRP

          vii) 31-33 months 20% discount on prevailing MRP

          viii) 34-36 months 15% discount on prevailing MRP

          18F+6P

           i)   1 – 18 months free replacement

           ii) 19-21 months 25% discount on prevailing MRP

          iii) 22-24 months 15% discount on prevailing MRP

10.    The replacement of batteries under warranty period arises in case of manufacturing defect only.   The burden lies on the complainant to prove that the battery purchased under Ex.A-1 and A-2 covered by Exs.A-3 and A-4 warranties suffered from manufacturing defect.   The 1^st opposite party on the other hand contended that the complainants shifted the place of batteries and inverter on their own accord and failed to follow the precautions mentioned in the warranties.  

11.    The complainants did not file affidavit of any technician to prove that the batteries and inverters covered by Exs.A-1 and A-2 suffered from manufacturing defect.  The functioning of inverters depends on the functioning of batteries and vice versa.  The complainants did not issue any notice to the opposite parties till 10-03-12.  Under those circumstances, the contention of the complainants that the instruments covered by Exs.A-1                 and A-2 functioned properly for about two months only cannot be accepted as their conduct was against that of a prudent person.   It can therefore be inferred that the instruments covered by Exs.A-1 and A-2 functioned properly till issuing Ex.A-7 notice on 05-03-12.  

12.    In Exs.A-6 and A-7 warranties it was mentioned that all reported problem should be referred to all servicing queries to microtech authorised dealer or microtech service centers only and that the product should not allowed to be fiddled (opened) by any unauthorized person/otherwise the warranty will be void.   It is the contention of the 1^st opposite party that unauthorized person meddled with the inverters and batteries.   The complainants for the reasons best known to them did not establish that they did not meddle those instruments by an unauthorized person in spite of specific contentions of the 1^st opposite party in Ex.A-11 reply.   We therefore, opine that the complainants miserably failed to prove that they adhered to the conditions mentioned in the warranty i.e., not meddling the same by an unauthorized person by adducing cogent evidence.   In view of the above circumstances, we opine that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and answer this point against the complainants.

13.  POINT No.2:-  In view of above findings, the complainants are not entitled to any compensation and answer this point also against the complainants.

14.  POINT No.3:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.    

            Typed to my dictation by Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 1^st day of April, 2013.

Sd/-XXX                                            Sd/-XXX                                     Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                           PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 1^st opposite party:     NIL

                                                                                                                      Sd/-XXX

PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.