This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 01-12-11 in the presence of Sri K. Ramesh, advocate for complainant and of Sri Ch. Ramesh, advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2, upon perusing the material on record after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-
The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking replacement of battery or Rs.10,000/- in alternative being cost of the battery; Rs.35,000/- towards mental agony; Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards legal expenses.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are hereunder:
The 1st opposite party is manufacturer of battery mopeds (Teenz electric) for which the 2nd opposite party is its dealer. The complainant purchased TVS battery moped on 25-04-08 for Rs.36,550/-. The opposite parties gave one year warranty to the battery fitted to the vehicle. The battery was damaged during first service of the vehicle. The complainant brought the same to the notice of the 2nd opposite party. Without replacing the battery the 2nd opposite party adjusted the fault in the battery and promised that the battery was working properly. The complainant believed the said version of the 2nd opposite party and used his vehicle. The complainant once again faced the battery problem and brought it to the notice of the 2nd opposite party at the time of 2nd and 3rd services. At that time also the 2nd opposite party adjusted the problem without replacing the battery with a false promise. Meanwhile the warranty period lapsed. Though the problem occurred within warranty period in respect of battery the 2nd opposite party avoided to replace it with false promises. The 2nd opposite party replaced the battery on 21-01-10 pursuant to his notice on payment of ¼ of cost of the battery and replaced. The battery is getting discharged immediately after charging and the problem persisted. The complainant purchased a new charger on 12-06-10. Inspite of that the battery did not function properly. The 2nd opposite party wrongly guided the complainant. The complainant suffered a lot of mental agony due to non functioning of the battery and attitude of the complainant. The complainant requested the 2nd opposite party to replace the battery and rectify the problem. The 2nd opposite party did not consider the requests of the complainant. The guarantee period of the battery was six months only. The negligent attitude of the 2nd opposite party caused mental agony to the complainant. The complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties and they kept quite though received notice. The complaint therefore be allowed.
3. The contention of the 1st opposite party in brief is hereunder:
The warranty period for the vehicle was 12 months from the date of purchase and six months for the battery in the hands of original purchaser. The complainant used the vehicle extensively. The complainant filed this complaint in May, 2011 beyond the period of warranty for both the vehicle and the battery. The complaint is barred by time. The complainant availed free and paid services on 07-06-08, 07-07-08, 08-0-8-08, 24-09-08, 24-03-09, 04-07-09, 12-10-09, 12-03-10 and 11-11-10 among other dates. The 2nd opposite party rendered services in a good and proper manner. The vehicle is in perfect mechanical condition and there was no defect or deficiency in the vehicle. The opposite parties extended their fullest co-operation to the complainant in the services rendered by them. The complainant escalated the monitory value of damages to have wrongful gain. Out of good will and the interest of customer services the opposite parties offered to replace the battery for ¼ of its cost. The 1st opposite party replaced the faulty batteries with brand new one. There was no negligence or deficiency of service on either of the party. Rest of the allegations contra mentioned in the complaint are all false and are invented to suit his case.
3. The contention of the 2nd opposite party in brief is hereunder:
The complainants vehicle is in good condition and the battery arranged to it is properly functioning. Neither the 1st opposite party nor the 2nd opposite party are the manufacturers of the battery fitted to the vehicle. Manufacturer of the battery is TAFE who issued warranty card. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as manufacturer of the battery was not added as a party. On payment of ¼ amount only the opposite parties replaced the battery. The complainant issued a letter of undertaking that he is not going to take any action against the opposite parties. Battery fitted to the complainant’s vehicle is working properly and is in good condition. The complaint therefore be dismissed.
- Exs.A1 to A-9 on behalf of complainant and Ex.A-10 on behalf of the opposite party were marked.
- Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:
- Whether the battery fitted to the complainant’s vehicle on 21-01-10 was defective?
- Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
- To what relief?
6. Admitted facts in this case are these:
a. The 2nd opposite party is dealer of the 1st opposite party.
b. The 1st opposite party is manufacturer of TVS Scooty Teenz Electric two wheelers.
c. The complainant purchased TVS Scooty Teenz Electric moped on 25-04-08.
d. The 2nd opposite party replaced battery to the complainant’s vehicle on 21-01-10 on payment of ¼ of battery cost (Ex.A-6).
7. POINTS 1 to 3:- The dispute is with regard to battery fitted to the vehicle purchased by the complainant from the 2nd opposite party. According to the warranty (Ex.A-10) the period of warranty for vehicle and battery was one year and six months respectively. The warranty period expired for both the vehicle and battery even by the date of EX.A-6 as rightly contended by the opposite parties.
8. The battery covered by Ex.A-6 was not manufactured by the 1st opposite party. But it was manufactured by Tractors and Farm Equipment Limited (TAFE) as seen from Ex.A-9 warranties. Therefore the 1st opposite party has nothing to do with the battery purchased by the complainant under Ex.A6 as rightly contended. Under those circumstances we did not find any deficiency of service by the 1st opposite party.
9. The period of warranty mentioned in Ex.A-9 warranty cards is not visible as it was struck off by blank ink. The relevant conditions in Ex.A-9 warranty card are extracted below:
“1. Warranted against defective manufacture. The liability of the company under the warranty is limited to making good defects arising only from defective workmanship or use of faulty material. Consequential liabilities will not be entertained.
2. Claims should be made through the dealer from whom the battery was purchased or from the nearest authorised dealer duly producing warranty card and cash memo”.
10. It is not the case of the complainant that he addressed his grievance regarding battery to its manufacturer as mentioned in Ex.A-9. The complainant did not send battery fitted to his vehicle to prove that it was defective in order to discharge his burden. Under those circumstances it cannot be said that the opposite parties committed deficiency of service and as such the complainant is not entitled to any compensation. In view of the above discussion we answer these points against the complainant.
11. POINT No.4:- In view of above findings in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 7th day of December, 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant:
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A1 | 25-04-08 | Delivery receipt of the TVS Motor cycle |
A2 | 06-11-09 | Copy of register legal notice along with postal receipts |
A3 | 19-01-10 | Copy of letter issued by the complainant to the opposite parties |
A4 | 19-01-10 | Copy of notice of the counsel for the complainant to the opposite parties |
A5 | 29-10-10 | Copy of registered legal notice issued by the counsel for the complainant to the opposite parties |
A6 | 21-01-10 | Cash receipt regarding payment of ¼ th cost of the battery |
A7 | 12-06-10 | Bill bearing No.233 regarding purchase of charger |
A8 | 27-05-08 | Copy of registration certificate of the TVS Battery Moped |
A9 | 20-01-10 | Warranty cards |
For opposite parties :
Ex.Nos. | DATE | DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS |
A10 | - | Owner’s manual book of the TVS Teenz electric bike |
PRESIDENT
