This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on 11-08-14                                in the presence of Sri D.V.H. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and   Sri S.Kalesha, Advocate for the opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-      The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking  replacement of battery or refund of value of the battery in the alternative; Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.30,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.    

2.      In nutshell the complaint averments are here under. 

          The complainant on 14-04-2012 purchased a battery for Rs.10,500/- from the opposite party and it was manufactured by M/s Excide Industries.  The said batter has warranty period of 24 months from the date of purchase.  Men from the office of opposite party came and fixed the inverter and battery.  Some days after purchase the battery gave trouble.  The complainant immediately brought the same to the notice of the opposite party who in turn sent their mechanic verified and tested the battery and expressed satisfaction about functioning of the battery.  The battery purchased from the opposite party gave frequent troubles to the complainant.  The opposite party had taken the battery along with warranty card to the opposite party who in turn issued acknowledgement on 19-11-13 with a promise to replace the battery within 15 days.  The opposite party failed to fulfill his promise.  In view of that the complainant and his family members suffered a lot during summer.  The complainant on 15-02-14 issued notice to the opposite party.  The opposite party neither gave reply nor replaced the battery.  The opposite party selling a battery with defect amounted to deficiency in service.  The complaint therefore be allowed.                

3.      The opposite party filed version and affidavit in brief are these:

          The complainant purchased MHD 1500 model battery from the opposite party on 14-04-2012 for Rs.10,500/-.  The opposite party is an authorized dealer for Exide Batteries manufactured by M/s.Exide Industries.  M/s.Exide Industries Limited, Vijayawada is necessary party to the complainant.  The complaint is therefore bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  The opposite party is neither competent nor got authority to replace the battery.  It is for company people either to get it repaired or to replace the same on the gravity of defect of the battery. On all occasions the company authority tested the battery scientifically and used to return to the opposite party stating that that it is in fit condition.  On 13-02-14 the opposite party received a letter M/s Excide Company to the effect that warranty period of battery has expired.  The opposite party informed the same to the complainant and requested him to receive the letter addressed by M/s. Exide Company and to receive the battery.  The opposite party did not commit any deficiency in service.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.                   

4.  Exs.A-1 to A-4 on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B-1 to B-11 on behalf of the opposite party were marked.  On 11-08-14 the learned counsel for the opposite party appeared before this Forum when it was about to close the docket and got marked Ex.B-11 meanwhile.        

5.   The admitted facts in this case are these. 

1.  The complainant purchased the battery manufactured by M/s.Exide

     Industries for Rs.10,000/- on 14-04-12 from opposite party (Ex.A-1). 

2.  The battery purchased Under Ex.A-1 had a warranty for a period of

     twenty four  months. 

3.  The complainant issued a legal notice to the opposite party (Exs.A-3&A-4).  

4.  The opposite party attended to the grievances of the complainant

     whenever made (Exs.A-2, B-1 and B-9).  The opposite party addressed a

     letter to M/s.Exide Industries Limited, Vijayawada. (Ex.B-10). 

6.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1.       Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of M/s.Exide Industries

          Limited as manufacturer?

2.       Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?

3.       Whether the complainant is entitled to replacement or refund of price   

          as mentioned in the sale invoice?

4.       Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation as claimed?

5.       To what relief? 

7.      POINT No.1:-   The complainant is aware that the battery purchased under Ex.A-1 manufactured by M/s.Exide Industries Limited.  The complainant did not make the manufacturer as a party to the complainant for the reasons best known to him.  On the top of Ex.A-1 it was mentioned that the opposite party is the authorized dealer of M/s.Exide Industries Limited and thereby is an agent of M/s.Exide Industries Limited.  Under those circumstances the contention of the opposite party that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of manufacturer can not be accepted.  For the discussions made supra we answer this point in favor of complainant.                

8.      POINT No.2:-      Exs.A-2 & B-1 to B-10 revealed that the battery purchased under Ex.A-1 gave frequent troubles to the complainant.  The complaints made by the complainant with the opposite party were corroborated by the documents filed by the opposite party himself.  Exs.B-1 to B-10 revealed that the battery supplied from the M/s.Exide Industries Limited was a defective one. Every defect need not be a manufacturing defect. Burden is on the complainant to prove that the battery purchased by him under EX-A1 suffered from manufacturing defect. The complainant failed to take steps as per section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act to prove that the subject battery suffered from manufacturing defect. In Ex.B-11 it was mentioned that the right to determine whether a battery needs repair, rectification, free replacement or pro-rata settlement rests with the company.  The opposite party as an agent of M/s.Exide Industries Limited committed deficiency of service by supplying a defective battery under Ex.A-1.  We therefore answer this point in favour of complainant. 

9.      POINT No.3:        The complainant claimed Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.30,000/- towards deficiency of service. In Ex A-3 notice the complainant mentioned that the battery gave troubles six months after purchase. But the complainant in his complaint and affidavit mentioned that the battery was not working properly some days after purchase. The complainant handed over the battery to the opposite party for replacement on 19/11/2013 only for the reasons best known to him i.e., nineteen months after purchase as seen from Ex-A2.  It can therefore be inferred that the complainant made use of the subject battery for nineteen months. Under those circumstances the contention of the complainant that the subject battery suffered from manufacturing defect cannot be accepted. The documents filed by the opposite party revealed that the battery sold under Ex-A1 could not be utilized with out defect during the warranty period. Considering period of usage of battery by the complainant directing the opposite party to refund the prorata value of the subject battery i.e., Rs 2200/- will meet ends of justice rather than ordering replacement. We therefore answer this point accordingly.

10.    POINT No.4:        The complainant claimed compensation of Rs20,000/- for mental agony and Rs30,000/- to wards deficiency of service. The complainant did not substantiate his claim for damages either in his complaint or affidavit.  This forum can take judicial cognizance power cuts by APSPDCL during the summer and inconvenience experienced by any citizen. It is well settled in law that compensation to be awarded should commensurate with the injury suffered. Considering the warranty period and usage of battery by the complainant awarding Rs5000/- in our consideration will meet ends of justice. We therefore answer this point accordingly.

11.    POINT No.5:        In view of above findings in the result the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

1. The opposite party is directed to refund Rs.2,200/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred only) being pro-rata value of the battery;
2. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as compensation. 
3. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint.
4. The opposite party is directed to pay the above amounts within a period of six weeks after receipt of the copy of the order, failing which item No.2 will carry interest @ 9% p.a. till payment.
5. The complainant can seek indemnification of those amounts from M/s Exide Industries Ltd, if so, advised.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 20^th day of August, 2014.

MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:-

PRESIDENT

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.