Haryana

StateCommission

A/623/2015

TAGORE INSTITUTE OF RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY POLYTECHNIC - Complainant(s)

Versus

TATA PASCIS - Opp.Party(s)

J.S.HOODA

04 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                      First Appeal No.           623 of 2015

                                      Date of Institution:       24.07.2015

                                      Date of Decision:         04.08.2015

 

M/s Tagore Institute of Research and Technology Polytechnic, Jamalpur, Tehsil Farukhnagar, District Gurgaon through Chairman – Mr. Partap Yadav.

                             Appellant-Complainant

Versus

1.      SBI Life Insurance Company Limited having its registered office at State Bank Bhavan Madame Cama Road, Narimon Point, Mumbai.

 

2.      M/s GE Countrywide Limited having its Branch Office at Sector 12, Opp. Mini Secretariat, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

                                      Respondents-Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Mr. B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                                                         

Present:              Mr. J.S. Hooda, Advocate for the appellant.

           

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member

 

M/s Tagore Institute of Research and Technology Polytechnic, District Gurgaon-complainant is in appeal against the order dated February 16^th, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short ‘District Forum’), Gurgaon vide which complaint was dismissed.

2.      Complainant Institute purchased TATA Bus for providing facilities to students on 24.09.2009.  It had a warranty for the bus as well as for battery.  It was fitted with an Exide battery manufactured by Exide Industries Limited, Gurgaon-opposite party No.3 (not arrayed as party in appeal).  During the last week of August, 2010 bus not starting, was taken to workshop of TATA Motors when it was pointed out that the battery was not working.  Complainant thereafter approached opposite party No.3 which returned the same with the remarks that it was out of warranty from manufacturing code.  Besides this, there was gap in DOS and MFG code.  Alleging deficiency in service, complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      Opposite parties contested the complaint.  Opposite parties No.1 & 2 denied their liability stating that the warranty for battery was provided by Exide Industries and not by opposite parties No.1 & 2. 

4.      Opposite Party No.3 also denied their liability stating that the battery was manufactured in March, 2009 while the claim was received on 04.09.2010.  The battery carried a warranty of eighteen months from the date of manufacturing. 

5.      After evaluating the evidence of the parties, District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that as per the warranty card, the battery carried a warranty of fifteen months from the date of manufacturing and twelve months from the date of sale or whichever is earlier.  Thus the warranty has been void under both the eventualities. 

6.      The bus was purchased on 24.09.2009.  The manufacturing code was 3C9, which decoded as March, 2009 as manufacturing date.  It had a warranty of twelve months from the date of sale and eighteen months from the date of manufacturing. Complainant had approached opposite party No.3 after more than twelve months from the date of sale that besides nearly six years have intervened by now.  Thus, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

7.      The appeal is therefore dismissed.

 

Announced: 04.08.2015

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

 

UK