DATED THE 31st JANUARY, 2017
O R D E R
JUSTICE R.N.BISWAL, PRESIDENT
This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 16.7.2013 passed by the District Forum, Angul in C.C.no. 95 of 2011 holding the appellants jointly and severally liable to replace the defective battery or to refund the price thereof to respondent no. 1 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum till realisation, pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost of Rs.2,000/- to him.
Respondent no. 1 as complainant filed the aforesaid case stating that on 8.9.2010, he purchased one motor cycle fixed with excide battery from respondent no. 2. While using the said motor cycle suddenly on 3.9.2011, the battery was discharged. Immediately thereafter he took the vehicle along with the battery to respondent no. 2 for removal of defect who referred him to respondent no.3, accordingly, he went there. After thorough inspection respondent no. 3 found that the battery was not keeping charge due to damage to the cell and accordingly sent it to appellant-opposite party no. 3 for replacement of the same as it was within the warranty period. On 9.9.2011, opposite party no. 3 – appellant returned the battery on the ground that it was deep discharged. So respondent no.1 was mentally shocked and filed the aforesaid case with prayer to direct the appellant and respondent nos. 2 and 3 to replace the defective battery or refund the price thereof with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of claim till realisation, pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.20,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
On being noticed, appellant and respondent no. 3 entered appearance before the District Forum and filed a joint written version inter alia contending that there was no manufacturing defect in the battery and that the case was not maintainable against them. Respondents no. 2 who was arrayed as opposite party no. 1 before the District Forum in the written version stated that as soon as respondent no. 1 lodged complain before him regarding the defective battery he sent it to respondent no. 3, the local dealer of the battery. So, there was no deficiency of service on his part. Respondent no.3 – opposite party no. 2 in the written version contended that it was merely an agent of appellants – Company who are the manufacturer of the battery. According to it, the battery was sent to opposite party no. 3 and after inspection the battery was found deep discharged and as such the same did not cover the warranty.
On hearing the parties, the District Forum framed three issues and passed the impugned order, being aggrieved of which the appellants have preferred the present appeal, as stated earlier.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the battery was deep discharged. Such discharge occurs when the battery is left in discharge state for a long period, water is poured in dry charged battery, low level of electrolyte, sulfation occurs on exposed portions, if alternator/dynamo does not function properly or is inadequate for the load or the battery is operated with insufficient charge for a long period of time, and this plea has also been taken by the appellants in the written version. So even though the battery developed defect within the warranty period, the appellants – Company is not liable to replace the same or get it repaired.
None appears on behalf of respondents on call.
It is found from the record that as per the opinion of Service Engineers of the appellant that the subject battery was not charging up to the minimum level because of deep discharged. Deep discharged can occur on different reasons and not due to manufacturing defects. There is no evidence from the side of respondent no. 1 that there was manufacturing defect in the battery. So, the impugned order cannot stand.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
Records received from the District Forum be sent back forthwith.
