Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/10/2014

Sanjana fancy shop Rep by it Prop Kurapati Venkatsasidhar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman and Managing Director Amara raja batteries limited - Opp.Party(s)

V.G.Prasanthi

31 Dec 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing     :20-02-2014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:31-12-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Thursday, this the 31^st day of  December, 2015

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.10/2014

 

Sanjana Fancy Shop, Represented by it’s Proprietor:

    Kurapati Venkata Sasidar,  S/o.Venkateswara Rao,

D.No.14/241, Kapu Street, Trunk Road, Nellore-1.                                  ..… Complainant 

 

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	The Chairman & Managing Director, Amara Raja  Batteries Limited, Astra Towers, 5th floor, Kondapuram, Hightech city, Hyderabad.
2.	The Proprietor, Pranitha enterprises, D.No.24/2084-12, GNT Road, Opposite to Lakshmi Priya TVS Showroom, Dargamitta, Nellore.
3.	Devi Batteries, Represented by it’s Proprietor, Shop No.2/2/1946-2, 8th  street, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Podalakuru Road, Nellore.                                                                                       …..Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 18-12-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri Veluru Ravi, advocate for the complainant and                                                                   opposite party No.1 called absent  and notice returned from opposite party No.3 and Smt.B.  Subbaramamma, advocate for the opposite party No.2  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri.N.S. KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER)

 

This  complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite parties to replace the new battery in the place of old battery which was purchased by the  complainant on 29-02-2012 from the 3^rd opposite party, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.2,000/- towards legal expenses and such other further reliefs.

 

2.         The brief averments of the complainant are that  he purchased Amaron Tall Tubular  battery having a serial No.J1C116E1171365 with a capacity of 800 V.A. alongwith U.P.S.  on 29-02-2012 from the 3^rd opposite party shop with 36 months full warranty by paying  Rs.17,500/- towards costs of battery U.P.S. and other electrical goods.  The entire installation of inverter made by Amaron company technicians  and while fixing the U.P.S. they have undertaken all the  technical safety measurements, which the company engineer specified laid down by the company.  Further complainant alleged that the home U.P.S. stopped working since 02-03-2013 i.e.,  after the date of purchasing the said article.  The complainant complained the problem to the service centre  and  the company engineer inspected and informed to the complainant that bottom of the battery was beaten by rat consequently the battery had a hole and leakage of acid in the main component of the battery and on account of which it stopped working.  Further the complainant alleged that the opposite parties  gave an assurance to the complainant to replace new battery in place of old battery but after some days passed, the opposite parties company engineer  informed that replacement of battery according to the terms and conditions of the warranty shall not be given and the loss must be beared by the complainant only. Further,  the complainant submitted that he has no knowledge to cover the  Amaron home U.P.S. and protect from the biting of rats.  The opposite parties also never mentioned in their manual specifying the cautions and precautions to protect the battery U.P.S. and other parts from rats.  So, the opposite party company is held liable for supplying the  defective battery with cheap and qualityless plastic which is vulnerable to rat bite.  The complainant alleged that commonly there is no possibility to affect any company battery from rat bite  because every company battery is made with heavy quality plastic.  The complainant got issued legal notice dated 06-04-2013 to the above opposite parties  seeking replacement of battery which was purchased from the 3^rd opposite party within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties received notices but not complied  the request made by the complainant.  The 3^rd opposite party notice  was returned to the sendor as  in sufficient address.  Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint seeking relief as prayed for in the complaint. 

 

            3.         1^st and 3^rd opposite parties called absent.  No representation on their behalf inspite of several adjournments given.

 

4.         The 2^nd opposite party  filed written version denying  all the allegations made in the complaint except that of admitted certain facts.  The 2^nd opposite party further contended that  as per  clause – I of terms and conditions of the warranty issued by the company to the complainant clearly discloses that  battery is warranted against any manufacturing  defects only arising during warranty period.   As per clause – 9  of terms and conditions of the warranty clearly discloses  that warranty does not cover improper  handling and willful abuse.  It is the duty of the complainant / purchaser to keep the battery free from rat bittings etc., damages.  The  2^nd  opposite party further contended that  the alleged damage caused to the  battery  due to rat bitting  was only  due to  improper maintenance of the battery by exposing the same for free entrance to the rats.  Hence, the said damage is only due to negligent handling and maintenance of the battery  by the complainant.  As such, the warranty  does not cover for replacement  for damages  caused  due to rat bitting and hence the  complainant is not entitled   for any relief  as prayed for in the complaint.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.

 

5.         The points for  determination  would be for consideration  is

 

(1)    Whether there is  negligence  or deficiency in service on the part of opposite

         parties?  If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed

         for?

(2)   To what relief?

 

            6.         In order to substantiate  the complainant averments, complainant filed evidence on affidavit  as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A4.  On the other hand,   the 2^nd opposite party did not file any evidence on affidavit insptie of granting several adjournments, except filing written version and also written arguments on its behalf. The complainant filed his written arguments.  Based on the material available on record, the case is proceeded with on merits. Heard on complainant and 2^nd opposite party.

 

7.         POINT No.1:  The admitted facts are that complainant purchased Amaron Tall Tubular  battery having a serial No.J1C116E1171365 with a capacity of 800 V.A. alongwith U.P.S.  on 29-02-2012 from the 3^rd opposite party shop with 36 months full warranty and the complainant paid  Rs.17,500/- to 3^rd opposite party towards the cost of battery, U.P.S. and other electrical goods.

 

 

 

8.         This claim arises out of alleged  deficiency in service in not  replacing the Amaron Tall Tubular Batteries  with UPS purchased by the complainant  from  the 3^rd opposite party. It is the  grievance of the complainant that the  Tubular battery purchased  stopped working due to bottom of the battery having been bitten by rats and this happened due to failure of the opposite parties to   enlighten the complainant   to take necessary  precautions to prevent  rats from damaging the  battery.  The opposite parties are  admitting the purchase of Tubular battery and with regard to   the damage of the  same due to rats biting,  the battery, consequent upon the same, the battery leaked  in the main component of the battery and  stopped working.  The opposite parties disowned their liability stating that as per terms and conditions of the warranty, they are bound to replace the battery, there was manufacturing defect in the  battery during the  period of warranty.  Even according to the complainant, there is no manufacturing defect in the battery.  According to him, the rats damaged the batteries.  The act of rats  in damaging the  batteries cannot be attributed as a  manufacturing defect.  According to warranty, only in case of manufacturing defect, the opposite parties are liable to provide replacement  and not otherwise.  An account of gross negligence  on the part of complainant in not taking necessary precautions and in proper handling and maintenance  of batteries, the same was exposed to bitings by the rats. The complainant has  to blame himself for the   latches and lapses on his  part and he cannot throw the  blame  on the opposite parties.  Though the  complainant alleges  that the company technicians  assured to replace the  batteries, no such assurance in   writing is placed before this  Forum.  The terms of  warranty as correctly contended by the 2^nd opposite party  does not  cover the replacement  for damages  caused due to  rat biting.  Therefore,  the complainant is not entitled any relief in the complaint as there is no deficiency in service  on the part of opposite parties.   Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

 

            9.         POINT No.2:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.

 

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  31^st day of  December, 2015.

 

                    Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

 

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

 

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

02-07-2015

Sri K.V. Sasidar, S/o.Venkateswara Rao,  Nellore-I  (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

-Nil-

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	29-02-2012	Cash Bill No.46 in the name of complainant issued by the opposite party No.3.
Ex.A2  -	-	Terms and conditions of  Warranty.
Ex.A3  -	06-04-2013	Legal notice from  complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties.
Ex.A4  -	-	Returned registered  post cover  addressed to the  opposite party No.3 sent by the complainant’s advocate.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

                                                                                                                   Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri  Veluru Ravi, Advocate, Nellore.
2.	The Chairman & Managing Director,  Amara Raja  Batteries Limited, Astra Towers, 5th floor, Kondapuram, Hightech city, Hyderabad.
3.	Smt B. Subbaramamma, Advocate, Nellore.
4.	M/s.Devi Batteries, Represented by it’s Proprietor, Shop No.2/2/1946-2, 8th  street, Sanjay Gandhi Nagar, Podalakuru Road, Nellore.

Date when free copy was issued: