Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/68/2017

C.D.Thipperudrappa S/o C.R.Thippaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Tata Autocamp.G.Y.Batteries Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

C.D.Thipperudrappa

28 Oct 2017

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:23.06.2017

DISPOSED      ON:28.10.2017

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

CC.NO: 68/2017

 

DATED:  28^th OCTOBER 2017

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        :MEMBER

                                 B.A., LL.B.,   

 

……COMPLAINANT	C.D. Thipperudrappa, S/o C.R. Thippaiah, Advocate, Behind Jain Temple, Doddapete,Chitradurga.      (Rep by Sri. C.D. Thipperudrappa, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Tata Autocamp, G.Y. Batteries Pvt. Ltd., TACO Holac, Damlapatt, Opp: Law College Road, Eraudwave, PUNE-411004, Maharashtra State.   2. Sri. Boosnur Enterprises, New Santhe Maidan Road, Chitradurga.   (In person)

ORDER

SRI. N. THIPPESWAMY :MEMBER

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,000/- along with interest from the date of complaint till realization and such other reliefs.

2.     The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, he is the RC owner of Star city Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-16 S-1723 having self-starter.  It is further submitted that, he purchased battery from the OP No.2 to his bike Tata Green Battery on 24.10.2016 vide receipt No.15206.  OP No.2 has issued the warranty card for the period of 4 years.  On 09.03.2017, when the complainant started self-starter of his bike, the battery was giving some defects.  Complainant has approached OP No.2 on 10.03.2017 at about 4-00 P.M and asked the OP No.2 for failure of battery.  OP No.2 has repaired the same and handed over the battery to the complainant on 11.03.2017.  Again the same problem arise in the battery.  Again the complainant approached OP No.2 and handed over the defective battery to the OP No.2.  But, OP No.2 failed to rectify the defects in the battery.  The complainant has issued notice to the OPs asking to rectify the defects in the battery within 15 days or else to return the new battery to him but, OP No.1 and 2 failed to do so.  Hence, the complaint and prayed for allowing the complaint.      

3.     After issuance of notice to the OPs, OP No.1 and 2 appeared before this Forum in person and filed their version.  In the version filed by the OPs, they have denied the entire contents of allegations made in the complaint as alleged by the complainant.  It is submitted that, the battery supplied by the OP No.1 is of Tata Group Company Battery and there is no defects in the battery.  The OP No.2 has sold the Tata Company Battery to the complainant, the same is in good condition.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.     Complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on the documents like Ex.A-1 to A-6.  OPs have filed affidavits of one Sri. Saurabh Kulshreshta, the Head – Customer Support of OP No.1 has examined as DW-1 and no documents have been produced.

5.     Arguments heard. 

6.     Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaint are that;

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that the OPs have supplied defective battery to the complainant and committed deficiency of service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

        7.     Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

        Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

        Point No.2:- As per final order.

 

REASONS

8.     It is not in dispute that, complainant is the RC owner of Star City Bike bearing Reg.No.KA-16 S-1723 and he purchased Tata Green Battery from OP No.1 to the same on 24.10.2016 as per Ex.A-2, the sale receipt issued by the OP No.2 which clearly shows that, complainant has purchased the battery from OP No.2.  Ex.A-1 is the job card issued by the OP No.2 and mentioned four years warranty in the warranty card.  Further the complainant also relied upon Ex.A-3 to Ex.A-6.  Ex.A-3 is the service spare invoice dated 14.04.2017 which shows the complainant has paid Rs.1,240/- to OP No.2.    Ex.A-4 is the legal notice issued by the complainant to the OPs, the same was served to the OPs.  But the OPs have not replied the same.  The OPs have filed their version and affidavit.  They have denied the contents and allegations made in the complaint and they have stated that, the OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the Tata Group company battery and OP No.2 is the seller/dealer of the same.  According to the OPs, there is no defects in the battery. 

9.     We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainant and the version and affidavit of OPs, which clearly shows that, as per the invoice, the complainant has purchased Tata Green Battery from the OP No.2, the same was manufactured by the OP No.1.  As per the documents, it shows that, the OPs have supplied the defective battery to the complainant.  But the OPs have failed to exchange the old battery to new battery within warranty period though it was under warranty period.  Hence, the OPs have committed deficiency of service by selling defective battery.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.

 

          10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.2 is hereby directed to give the new Exide Bike Battery to the complainant.  In turn OP No.2 is at liberty to collect the same from OP No.1. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 28/10/2017 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)

           

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

DW-1:- Sri. Saurabh Kulshreshtha by way of affidavit evidence.

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Job card issued by the OP No.2
02	Ex.A-2:-	Sale receipt issued by the OP No.2
03	Ex.A-3:-	Service spare invoice dated 14.04.2017
04	Ex.A-4:-	Legal notice issued by the complainant to the OPs.
05	Ex.A-5:-	Postal receipt
06	Ex.A-6:-	Postal acknowledgements

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**