DATE OF FILING- 2.1.2013
DATE OF DISPOSAL-24.7.2014
O R D E R
Dr.N.Tuna Sahu,Member
The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that he purchased four numbers of Exide Batteries Type 12E25 from the Opposite Party No.3 vide Bill No.87 dated 27.2.2012 for Rs.9,840/-(Rupees nine thousand eight hundred forty) only for his E-Bike. The manufacture of the said batteries are Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 having their local office at Berhampur. Subsequently, after use of the batteries for certain months, all the four batteries were found malfunctioning. The complainant placed the matter before the Opposite Party No.2 for replacement or refund the value of the said batteries, but the Opposite Party No.2 did not accommodate the claim of the complainant. An Advocate’s Notice in this regard also did not yield any result for which the complainant has sought relief by filing this consumer complaint before this Forum with a prayer for refund of Rs.28,450/- as a whole which includes the cost of the batteries and compensation for the
-2-
harassment and damage caused to him due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.
2- The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 put their appearance through learned counsel and filed their written statement jointly. The Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 in their written statement have raised prima-facie objection regarding maintainability of the case on the ground of cause of action and jurisdiction of the case. According to them, the case filed by the complainant is frivolous ,vexatious, baseless and with a motive for unlawful gain which is liable to be dismissed in limine. However, on the merit of the case, it is stated that on 21.8.2012 they received the disputed batteries from Opposite Party No.3 in discharged condition. On verification of the said batteries, it was found by the Service Engineer that the said batteries were found in the bulging condition due to over charge which is not a manufacturing defect. So as per terms and conditions of warranty, the said claim of the complainant was rejected and returned back to Opposite Party No.3 . It is further stated that there is no privity of contract with the complainant for purchase of batteries in question. Their transactions with the Opposite Party No.3 are principal to principal basis and the Opposite Party No.3 is not the agent of them. Opposite Party No.3 is to sell their product to their own customers. According to the Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on their part in rejecting the claim of the complainant and, therefore, the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
3- The Opposite Party No.3 has also represented through learned counsel and filed written statement wherein it is admitted that the complainant had purchased four numbers of batteries of Exide make having Type 12E25 vide Sl.No.87 for Rs.9840/- on 27.2.2012 for his E-Bike. The above batteries are manufactured and marketed by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2. It is also admitted that when the complainant placed complaint for defect in such batteries, he forwarded the matter to Opposite Party No.2 who is empowered by the company to settle local claim of the customer. On rejection of claim of the complainant, he returned back the batteries on 21.8.2012 to the complainant communicating the remarks of the Opposite Party No.2. It is further stated that he is only the authorized dealer for marketing and selling of new batteries. He is not authorized by the Excide Industries to settle claim and it is the liability on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to accept or reject the claim of customers in general and the complainant in particular. It is prayed by Opposite Party No.3 to dismiss the case against him.
4- On the date of hearing, we heard the case in extenso from both the sides and perused the documents filed on record by the respective parties in support of their cases.
-3-
We have also gone through the written notes of arguments filed by the respective parties in detail. From the facts of the case, it reveals that there is no dispute regarding selling of four numbers of batteries by Opposite Party No.3 to the complainant vide Sl.No.87 for Rs.9840/- on 27.2.2012. It is also not disputed that the Opposite Party No.3 is the authorized dealer to sell the product of Exide Industries. On the other hand, it is clear that the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 are the manufacturer and local office of the Exide Industries Ltd. It is a fact that the four numbers of batteries were found defective within the period of warranty in force. It is the obligation of the Opposite Parties either to accept or reject the claim of any customer. It is an admitted fact that the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 rejected the claim of the complainant on the ground of bulging due to over charging.
5- The complainant has submitted before this Forum that the said batteries were purchased by him as per advise of his doctor to ride on E-Bike only since he is a patient of brain tumor. The ground for rejection of the batteries is not found to be justified when the batteries were within its warranty period. Rejection for replacement of such batteries within its warranty period on a mere ground of over charging made by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 is clearly manifested to be the act of unfair trade practice adopted by Opposite Party No.1and 2. Obviously, the complainant had purchased the batteries of such a branded company taking into account its good reputation and worthiness in the market to get trouble free service. But all his hopes and aspiration has been marred and defeated due to rejection of his genuine claim. Definitely, the complainant must have suffered mental agony and harassment upon rejection of his claim. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to replace the four numbers of batteries with new one of equal power and same model and to hand over the same to the complainant.
6- In view of the foregoing facts and findings, we allow the case of the complainant on contest against Opposite Parties. We direct the Opposite Parties to replace the four numbers of Exide Batteries with new one of equal power and same model free from any defect and hand over the same to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of this order. At the same time, the complainant is directed to return the defective Exide
-4-
Batteries bearing Model No.12E25 to the Opposite Parties on receipt of the new batteries as ordered above on proper receipt. Besides the above we award a sum of Rs.1000/-(Rupees one thousand) towards cost of litigation in favour of the complainant to be paid by Opposite Parties within the above period. The case is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 24th day of July,2014
I AGREE(MEMBER) I AGREE(PRESIDENT) MEMBER
(Smt.M.Pradhan) (Miss S.L.Pattnaik (Dr.N.Tuna Sahu)
