BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 45/2012.
THIS THE 9th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa, B.A.LLB. MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Narayanrao S.E. Advocate, N. 8-11-15/27,
“Shanti Nilaya” Neelakanteshwar Nagar,
Raichur - 584 103.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Director Industrial, Corporate Office, Exide
Industries Limited, Exide House, NO. 59E Gowringhee Road, Kolkatta- 700 020.
2. The Proprietor, M/s. Swastik Automobiles, Exide
Battery Dealer, Krishna Ambaji Complex, Gowshala Road, Raichur- 584 102.
3. The Manager, Exide Industries Limited, No. 12-
11-85/1A, Krishna Ambaji Compound, Gowshala Road, Raichur- 584 102.
CLAIM : For to direct the opposites to refund battery an
amount of Rs. 5,000/- with cost and interest
Date of institution :- 12-06-12.
Notice served :- 04-07-12.
Date of disposal :- 09-11-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. S.E. Narayanarao, Advocate.
Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 represented by Sri. I. M. Patil, Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Narayanrao against opposite Exide Industries Ltd., U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, to direct the opposites to refund battery amount of Rs. 5,000/- with cost and interest.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, he purchased Exide Battery bearing No. 44823-4F8 for the use of his car from opposite No-2 dealer manufactured by opposite No-1 and its main dealer opposite No-3 on 24-11-2008 with a guarantee period of five years from the date of its purchase. But, the said battery was having manufactural defects and failed to give service, complainant brought the said defects of the battery to the notice of opposite No-2, but neither opposite No-2 nor other opposites shown their interest in rectifying the manufacturral defects in the battery or replacement of by new one. But they started charging service charge for repairs and thereby, all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.
3. Opposite No-1 is the head office of opposite Nos-2 & 3. Hence opposite No-2 filed written version. Opposite Nos- 1 & 3 have adopted same written version by filing their memo dt. 04-04-2012.
4. The brief facts of the written version filed by them are of denial facts. They contended that, the guarantee for period the said battery was only for two years. After two years, as per the terms and conditions noted in the guarantee card, it charged service charges, there was no deficiency in their services and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, he purchased car battery bearing No. 44823-4F8 purchased from opposite No-2 manufactured by opposite No-1 and its main dealer of opposite No-3 on 24-11-20008 with a guarantee period of five years from the date of its purchase, but it developed manufactural defects and failed to give service as assured by opposite No-2. The complainant brought the said defects to the notice of opposite No-2 and other opposites but they started charging fee for service of the battery in spite of rectifying the defects in it. None of the opposites shown their interest either in rectifying the mistakes in the battery or replacement of it and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.?
2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint.?
3. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of complainant was filed, who was noted as PW-1. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-3 are marked. Affidavit-evidence of PW-2 was filed. Totally documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.p-3 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of opposite No-2 was filed, who was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 & Ex.R-2 are marked.
8. In the instant case opposite No-2 or other opposites not denied the purchase of new Exide Battery bearing no. 44842-4F8 by the complainant on 24-11-2008 on payment of Rs. 3,950/- for the use in his car vide receipt at Ex.P-1.
9. It is a fact that, the complainant got service the said battery from opposite No-2 on 15-06-2012 on payment of Rs. 120/- vide Ex.P-2.
10. The complainant filed, warranty claim form dt. 17-05-2012 vide Ex.P-3 with opposite No-2.
11. In the light of the circumstances stated above. Now let us consider, as to whether the guarantee period of the said battery is of five years from the date of its purchase as contended by the complainant or as to whether it is only for two years from the date of its purchase as contended by opposite No-2.
12. In support of the contention of the complainant, he not produced guarantee card issued by opposite No-2, at the time of its purchase. It is contended by him that, the said guarantee card handed over to opposite No-2 at the time of service.
13. On the other hand, the opposite No-2 contended that, guarantee period for the said battery was of two years from the date of its purchase and not five years as contended by the complainant.
14. In support of this contention, it filed guarantee card issued to complainant at the time of purchase of the said battery, which is marked at Ex.R-2. We examined the submissions made by both the advocates in this regard and also the warranty card Ex.R-2.
15. As per the conditions noted on Page No-4 of the guarantee Booklet, if, any manufacture defects crept within 40-42 months from the date of its purchase. The new battery will be given to the purchaser at the discount of 35% on the maximum retail value prevailing at that time. This condition was accepted by the complainant at the time of purchase, that means, he received warranty card Ex.R-2 without raising any objections at that time, so this condition is applicable to the case of complainant. This warranty card shows the service done to the battery by opposite No-2 on two occasions however, Ex.P-2 receipt issued by opposite No-2 dt. 15-05-2012 shows that, it gave service on payment of Rs. 120/-. The warranty claim form submitted to opposite No-2 is dt. 17-05-2012, we have taken note of all these factors for our consideration and in the light of the affidavit-evidences filed by the parties, we are of the view that, the battery was developed manufactural defects prior to 25-03-2012, as such, complainant is entitled to get back 35% of the cost of the battery prevailing as on 25-03-2012, as we have no records to say the exact market value of the said battery at that time. Hence, it is a proved fact by the complainant that, opposites shows their negligence in rectifying the manufacture defects of the said battery after its sale and thereby, all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services, accordingly we answered Point No-1.
16. As regard to the reliefs are concerned, the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 35% in the market value of the said battery as on 25-03-2012. The complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in service from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation. The complainant is also entitled to get future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on 35% of the market value of the said battery prevailing as on 25-03-2012 and on Rs. 5,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. Accordingly, we answered Point No-2.
POINT NO.3:-
17. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover 35% of the amount of the battery prevailing maximum retail price as on 25-03-2012 from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.
The complainant is also entitled to recover a total amount of Rs. 5,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally.
The complainant is also entitled to recover interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on 35% of the market value of the battery prevailing as on 25-03-2012 and on Rs. 5,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount.
Opposite Nos. 1 to 3 are hereby granted one month time to make the payment from the date of this judgment
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 09-11-2012)
Sri. K.H. Sri Ramappa Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. President,
District Consumer Forum Raichur. District Consumer Forum Raichur.
