Delhi

East Delhi

CC/748/2015

KUMAR VIKRAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

SU -KAN POWER - Opp.Party(s)

01 Dec 2017

ORDER

             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

              CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                       

                                                                                                        Consumer complaint no.     748/2015                                                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                        Date of Institution            24/09/2015

                                                                                                        Order reserved on            01/12/2017

                                                                                                        Date of Order                    04/12/2017               

In matter of

Mr  Kumar Vikram, adult

S/o  Ramesh Kumar Sharma      

R/o –G-48/1, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi  110092

 

Through –Power of attorney holder-

 

Ramesh Kumar Sharma

S/0- Late Roop Ram Sharma

HN- 48/1, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092…….……..……………….Complainant                                                                  

                                                                           

                                                                       Vs

M/s Su-Kam Power System Ltd.  

Corp. Office- Plot no. 54,

Udhyog Vihar, Sec. 54, Phase VI,

Gurgaon, Haryana 122001

 

ESS Aay Ventures

C-57, Preet Vihar,

Vikas Marg, Delhi 110092…………………………..………………….Opponents

 

 

Quorum                                                    Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                                                                   Dr P N Tiwari              Member

                                                                   Smt Harpreet Kaur    Member                                                                                                                      

                    

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

Brief  Facts of the case                                                                                             

Complainant purchased 2 inverter batteries from OP2/ESS Aay Ventures for a sum of Rs 15000/-on 24/06/2014 vide SID no. 135 AH vide bill no. 577 (Ex CW1/1). Standard warranty for 24 month was given orally by OP 2/seller from the date of purchase. Complainant stated that after about 5 months of use, battery was not charging, so complaint was made to OP1/ manufacturer of the battery for replacement vide complaint no. 16053456676.

The service engineer from OP1 visited house of complainant and after inspection, job card was prepared and wrote reason for problem as “Battery discharged and Cell Damaged”.

Thereafter complainant again lodged complaint on 11/07/2015 which was intimated as“Resolved”. Thereafter several complaints were made, but no complaints were resolved.  Complainant sent a legal notice to OP1, but no reply was received. Complainant sent many emails to OP, but did not get any reply. Seeing deficient services of OP1, filed this complaint claiming refund of the cost of two batteries.    

OP1 filed written statement denying all allegations as wrong and incorrect. It was admitted that complainant had purchased two batteries and after use of five months, defect of non charging occurred for which their service engineer inspected the battery and found “Battery plates got burnt due to high frequency charging by the inverter. OP stated that complainant was advised to get the inverter checked for any fault from the manufacturer of the inverter, but no such concrete evidence was filed by complainant. It was submitted that OP being in the business of manufacturing batteries, knows well that such defect could only arise due to high frequency charging by the inverter and as such, batteries run successfully even beyond the warranty tenure. So alleged allegations were wrong and totally false and the complaint may be dismissed.

Rejoinder was filed by the complainant, but evidences were filed through complainant’s attorney / father Mr Ramesh Kumar Sharma, who affirmed himself on oath that all the contents and evidence were true and correct and were on record. 

OP1 did not file evidence and OP2 did not put their appearance till the date of arguments.

Arguments were heard from the complainant’s counsel and after perusal of file, order was reserved.

We have gone through all the facts and evidence on record and it was seen that complainant had purchased two batteries for use in inverter. His main grievance was for replacing both the batteries as charging was not proper after the use in five months.  The complaint lodged by the complainant was timely attended by the service engineer from OP1.

Based on the finding in the job sheet by service engineer of OP1 that Battery plates got burnt due to high frequency from inverter and was advised to get the inverter checked from the manufacturer of inverter, but there was no concrete evidence on record to show that inverter was ever checked. More so, complainant has neither stated about the type and configuration of his inverter and since when he was using the same. It is obvious that batteries run on a system where a regular charging was done, but if any defect is present in the inverter or where the batteries are to be used, manufacturing defect in the said battery cannot be proved where over five months after using battery, battery plates got burnt. Also, complainant has not filed any evidence of purchase of inverter and its type and configuration. Here, evidence on affidavit was filed by the power of attorney/ father of the complainant and had put his sign on the affidavit of his own.       

So, we come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this complaint and it deserves to be dismissed, so dismissed without cost.

 

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per the Regulation 18 of the Consumer Protection Regulation, 2005 (in short CPR) and file be consigned to Record Room under 20(1) of the CPR. 

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari  Member                                                                             Mrs Harpreet Kaur Member    

                                                                              

                                                    Shri Sukhdev Singh - President