DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Complaint No. CC/010/254 of 7.4.2010 Decided on: 19.8.2010 Harnam Singh son of Sh.Gian Chand, resident of H.No.117/2,Arjan Nagar, Patiala. -----------Complainant Versus 1. Texla Batteries, Sunami Gate, Near Modi College, Patiala, through its Proprietor/Partner. 2. Exide Industries Ltd.,Exide House, 59-E,Chowringhee Road, Kalkatta-700020, through its authorized signatory. 3. Exide Industries Ltd.,177, H&I,Industrial Area, Chandigarh through its Authorized Signatory. ----------Opposite parties. Complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. QUORUM Sh.Inderjit Singh, President Sh.Amarjit Singh Dhindsa,Member Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member Present: For the complainant: Sh. Amrinder Singh, Advocate For opposite parties: Sh. Amar Singh, Advocate ORDER SH.INDERJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT Complainant Harnam Singh has brought this consumer complaint under Sections 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as amended up to date ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the opposite parties fully detailed and described in the head note of the complaint. 2. As per averments made in the complaint the case of the complainant is like this:- That the complainant had purchased one Exide inverter battery having Sr.No.42245,Battery type: Plus 1350 Exide, Battery Code: 7H7 4G7 for an amount of Rs.8000/- on 15.3.2008 from the opposite party no.1. That at the time of purchase of the said battery, the opposite party no.1 had given 18 months complete warranty of the battery and free replacement and also promised to provide free service of the said battery time to time. That after sometime, the said battery started to create some problems and ultimately on 15.5.2009 the said battery became completely dead i.e. the same is not charging and the complainant has informed to the opposite parties regarding the problem of the battery time and again, but opposite parties have failed to adhere the genuine requests of the complainant and lingering on the matte one pretext or the other. That the opposite party no.1 has also promised to the complainant for the monthly service of the battery free of costs, but the opposite party no.1 has never checked the battery of the complainant and the service card, which has been given at the time of purchase of the said battery, which is still blank and clearly shows the deficiency in service at the hands of opposite party no.1.That the complainant has also filed a complaint No.10152/2/2010 dated 22.2.2010 to the Consumer Online Resource & Empowerment Centre, which is supported by Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food & Public Distribution, Department of Consumer Affairs, Govt. of India regarding the problem, of the above stated battery and harassment of the complainant by the opposite party no.1.The said centre has also forwarded a complaint to the opposite parties but the opposite parties have failed to pay any interest of the genuine problem of the complainant. That the complainant has been facing mental pain, agony and great inconvenience has been caused to the complainant due to the above acts of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10000/- on this account as well as other charges paid to the opposite parties and litigation charges. Hence this complaint. 3. Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed a joint written reply contesting the claim of the complainant. It is admitted that battery was purchased by one Sh.Harnam Singh. Warranty, facility for replacement and free service was given by the opposite party no.2 but not by the opposite party no.1. The allegation of the complainant is vague and wrong. The complainant never approached the opposite parties regarding defect of battery. Hence the allegation of delaying the matter does not arise. That the battery might have become unserviceable for want of care as mentioned in the warranty clause on the part of the complainant. The complainant never approached the opposite parties regarding service of the battery, as such the service record remained blank. Therefore, it does not amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties did not receive any complaint from any quarter in this regard. There is no reason for mental pain and agony due to the fault of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is not entitled to any relief from the opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint have also been denied and have prayed that complaint be dismissed. 4. The parties in order to prove their case have tendered their respective evidence on the record. 5. The parties have filed the written arguments. We have gone through the same and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties. 6. The perusal of the cash memo, Ex.C2 would show that the battery was purchased on 15.3.2008.As per, Ex.C3 the warranty period is 18 months from the date of purchase. The present complaint was filed on 7.4.2010.The warranty period had expired 18 months after the purchase of the battery i.e. 15.3.2008.So the warranty was upto September 2009 only. The present complaint has been filed after the expiry of the period of warranty. Moreover there is nothing placed on the record by the complainant as to with which problem the battery is not working or being charged properly. The complainant has not examined any expert. In the absence of any expert evidence it can not be presumed that the battery in dispute suffers from any manufacturing defect. In other words the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 7. In the result we hold that the complaint is without any merit and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record. Pronounced. Dated:19.8.2010. President Member Member
| | Mr. Amarjit Singh Dhindsa, Member | HONABLE MR. Inderjit Singh, PRESIDENT | Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member | | 
