DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 513/2006
Mr. Sangram Patnaik,
B-1/97, Second Floor,
Lajpat Nagar – 1,
New Delhi - 110024 -Complainant
Vs
1. Su-Kam Communications System Ltd.,
WZ-1401/02, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi – 110 046
2. Super Power Systems,
83 – A, Garhi, Opp Main Road,
Sant Nagar, Near Church, East of Kailash,
New Delhi – 110 065 -Opposite Parties
Date of Institution: 12.09.06 Date of Order: 04.03.16
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
S.S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
S.S. Fonia, Member
Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he purchased “Su-Kam” 1400 Sine Wave inverter (Model no. Sine-I) with “Su-Kam” batteries from OP-2 who is the authorized dealer of OP-1 on 28.8.2004 against consideration of Rs. 16,800/-. The inverter carried warranty of two years i.e. till 27.8.2006. Copy of warranty card dated 28.8.2004 is marked as Annex. 2; that on 16.1.06 i.e. within warranty period the inverter and batteries started giving problems and it used to shut down for days together. Even though the representatives of the opposite party no. 1 found out that there is some problem with the “card” on 09.01.2006 itself on the basis of complaint No. 747, the OPs’ representative attended the inverter on 12.1.06. The job cards are annexed as Annex. 3 & 4 respectively. Even after the repair, the inverter is said to be not working properly. Despite several visits, the OPs failed to repair the inverter. The complainant thereafter made complaints on 30.4.06 (complaint no. ARF 4285), 03.5.2006, 4.5.2006 (complaint no. 642) and 16.5.2006 (complaint no. 3101) over phone but these complaints did not yield any results. Thereafter, on 24.5.06 another complaint was made vide complaint no. 4454 and the representative of OP-1 inspected the inverter and informed the complainant that there is a problem in one battery but no attempts were made to repair or replace the defective battery. Copy of job card dated 24.5.06 is Annex. 5. This was followed by complaints on 1.6.06 and 02.6.06. This resulted into inspection of the inverter by the OPs’ representative on 7.6.06 who informed that batteries had got damaged because of problem in the “card” and overcharging. Copy of job card dated 7.6.06 is as Annex. 6. The complainant states that the problem with the “card” had started long before 9.1.06 i.e. within the warranty period and the batteries got damaged only because of the defective inverter and over charging of battery. After several phone calls the representative of OPs replaced the “card” with an old one. Copy of job card dated 21.6.06 is Annex. 7. When the complaints detailed in the complaint did not yield any result, the complainant sent a legal notice on 28.7.06 as per Annex. 8 and Corrigendum (Annex. 9) but no reply came from the OPs. Para 8 of the complaint reads as under:-
“That the fact that the inverter started to giving problems within a short period after purchase of the same shows that the opposite parties had delivered goods to the complainant which had manufacturing defect and willful negligence by the opposite parties towards complainant show that the opposite parties are deficient in providing the service to the complainant.”
Aggrieved by the non-response of the OPs the complainant pleading negligence etc. has filed this complaint before this Forum for directing the OPs to pay to the complainant:
- Rs. 16,800/- being the price of the inverter with interest of 12% p.a. from the date of purchase of the inverter till the date of actual payment;
- Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for injury caused to the complainant by wilful negligence of the opposite parties.
- Rs. 3,500/- towards cost of the notice including stationary, postage etc.
In the written reply of OP-1 the allegations have been denied on the ground that the complaint does not contain the invoice as regards purchase of batteries. Further, the manufacturing defect has been denied by the OP No. 1 for the simple reason that the inverter was working since 2.8.04 till 6.1.06. OP No. 1 has further asserted that provisions of warranty are limited to the extent of rectifying manufacturing defect, if any. The OP No. 1 has also reiterated that the batteries manufactured by them carried a warranty of 18 months which expired on 27.2.06 and Annex. 5 i.e. job card dated 24.5.06 endorses the fact that one battery was not working with further remarks that “battery is out of warranty”. Accordingly, OP No. 1 has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy cost against the complainant.
The complaint has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the complaint.
OP-2 is exparte vide order dated 21.3.02 passed by our predecessors.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Rohit Pathak, Manager (legal) has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP No. 1.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the Parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is undisputed that the warranty card issued by the OPs indicates date of purchase of the inverter as 20.8.04. Therefore, the plea taken by the OPs that without submission of original invoice the complaint is not maintainable does not hold good. Original Quotation given by OP-2 to the complainant is Ex. C1/1. Original booklet given to the complainant is Ex. C1/2. This booklet pertains to inverter in question. Warranty card attached therein clearly proves that the inverter carried a warranty of 2 years. Ex. C-1/3 to C-1/8 are the documents/job-sheets. The complainant has not filed the warranty card in respect of batteries in question. Therefore, there is no documentary evidence to prove that the batteries also carried a warranty for 2 years. Hence, OP-1’s version has to be believed.
As regards the manufacturing defect pointed out by the complainant, batteries worked till 6.1.16 i.e. for more than 17 months. Hence, there could be no manufacturing defect in the inverter or the batteries. It is undisputed that the first complaint was lodged on 9.1.06 which was attended to by the OPs on 12.1.06. Job card is Ex. C-1/4. The remarks of the OP’s employee is “all parameters checked OK”. The job card Ex. C-1/5 dated 24.5.06 contains endorsement which shows that one battery was defective which was out of warranty. The stand taken by the OPs that the complainant has not submitted warranty card in respect of batteries which is valid for 18 months from the date of purchase and the reply of complainant in the rejoinder in Para 7 demonstrate deliberate silence of complainant regarding allegation of non-submission of warranty card with reference to batteries. Therefore, in the eyes of law deliberate silence on the part of the complainant with specific reference to warranty of battery amounts to admission of the fact that he has not submitted the warranty card for batteries or alternately the batteries carried the warranty for a period of 18 months which expired on 27.2.06. The main cause for occurrence of defect in the batteries which was detected on 24.5.06 after expiring of the warranty by the engineer of the OPs resulted in non-functioning of batteries. This fact is substantiated in report Ex. C-1/8 also filed by the complainant himself. In this report defect in inverter has not been attributed to defect in battery. Accordingly, deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is not proved.
Here, we want to note down one more fact which has not been disclosed by either of the parties. Quotation Ex. C-1/1 and job sheets clearly demonstrate that the inverter and the batteries in question were purchased by M/s Pathnayak Associates. We do not know whether the complainant is the sole proprietor of the firm or whether he is one of the partners of the firm.
In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (S.S.FONIA) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 04.03.16.
Case No. 513/06
04.03.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (S.S.FONIA) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
