The complainants have filed the above referred cases against the same Ops for same cause of action; hence we clubbed up the cases and heard from the parties for a common order.

1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainants is that they have purchased ADDO TOUGH/ADDOX POWER/ADDO DRIVE/trax batteries from the OP.1 for the use of the same in their inverters, the manufacturer of the batteries being the OP No.2.  The details of the batteries purchased by the complainants, purchase and other details are placed below for better appreciation.

The common case of the complainants are that the batteries  within one month of their use started giving under performance as they did not give proper back up and on complaint, the Ops only passed some instructions to the complainants regarding use of batteries.  It is submitted that the complainants were scrupulously following the instructions of the Ops as well as the instructions lay down in the warranty card but the performance was not improving.  It is also submitted that the batteries stopped functioning during warranty period and the fact was intimated to OP.1 who assured that the batteries will be inspected and the problems will be sorted out by OP.2 soon but as nobody turned up, the complainants compelled to handover the defective batteries to OP.1 for replacement with new ones.  It is also further submitted that till filing of this case, the Ops have not taken any action in spite of repeated approach and the complainants believed that due to bad workmanship and faulty mechanism, the batteries stopped working during warranty period.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainants have filed these cases praying the Forum to direct the Ops to refund the cost of batteries with interest @ 18% p.a. and to pay respective compensation and costs to the complainants.

2.                     The OP No.1 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted the sale of batteries to the complainants which are manufactured by OP.2.  It is contended that there is no specific allegation against OP.1 by the complainants and after sale of products of OP.2, the OP.1 has limited liability and any defect or malfunctioning of batteries is not his responsibility.  It is further contended that in case of any complaint from the customers came to his knowledge, he being the retailer, passed the complaint to Service Branch of OP.2 and the said service branch might have passed some instructions to the complainants directly and any delay in solving the problems of complainants by OP.2 is not the mistake of OP.1.  The OP contended that the complainants appeared before the OP.1 with alleged batteries stated to be nonfunctional within warranty period and the OP.1 forwarded the batteries then and there to the service branch of OP.2.  It is the duty of OP.2 to see whether the batteries suffered any manufacturing defect and as per warranty condition, the OP.2 is to replace the defective batteries with new ones if the defects are manufacturing in nature.  It is also further submitted that the OP.1 has sold the batteries in good and working condition and the complainants have used the same for pretty long period.  Thus denying any fault on its part, the OP.1 prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.

3.                     The OP.2 also filed counter denying the allegations of the complainants and contended that the complainants have not supplied any information regarding purchase details and also have not registered for any warranty against the batteries and hence the OP.2 disputes the authenticity of the sale made by the dealer-OP.1.  The OP.2 contended that the OP.1 is dealing with other brand of batteries and hence the batteries manufactured by OP.1 have been sold to the complainant under the brand name of OP.2.  It is further contended that the OP.2 neither received the defective batteries for warranty settlement from OP.1 nor received any communication either from OP.1 or from the complainant and hence the OP.2 cannot be held liable for deficiency in service.  The OP also further contended that it has not received the Invoice/bill in original along with valid warranty card against the batteries and as such they are not responsible for any claim during warranty period.  With these and other contentions denying any fault on its part, the OP also prayed to dismiss the case of the complainants.

4.                     The complainants have only filed copy of Invoice and warranty card.  No document is filed by any of the Ops.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials on record.

5.                     In the above noted cases, the purchase of batteries by the complainants from OP.1 for use of the same in their inverters and issue of invoice and warranty cards with seal and signature of OP.1 in their respective dates as mentioned in table supra are all admitted facts.  The complainants stated that their batteries during warranty period did not give proper back up and on complaint the Ops only passed some instructions regarding usage of the batteries but the batteries stopped working during warranty period.  Finally as the Ops did not turn up, they handed over the batteries to OP.1 for warranty replacement but till date the Ops have not taken any action.

6.                     The OP.1 admitted about sale of batteries to the complainants which were manufactured by OP.2 but stated that after sale of batteries, he has limited liabilities.  The OP.1 stated that if any complaint from the customers comes to him, he immediately passed the same to the service branch of OP-2 and in the present cases, he has done so.  Any delay in solving the problems of the complainants by OP.2 is not the mistake of OP.1.  The OP.1 also admitted that the complainants approached him with defective batteries and he forwarded the batteries to OP.2 and after forwarding of batteries, he has no role to play.

7.                     The OP.2 denied receipt of any battery either from the complainants or from the dealer and disputed about authenticity of the batteries purchased by the complainants from OP.1 as the OP.1 is dealing with other brand of batteries also.  The OP.2 also stated that he has not received any complaint or any paper from anybody.

8.                     In these cases, the complainants have filed copy of sale invoice along with warranty card issued by OP.1.  The table placed above also shows the details of sale.  The copy of warranty card also shows the seal and signature put by OP.1 and the logo in warranty cards show that the alleged batteries were manufactured by OP.2.  Hence the contention of OP.2 at para.2 of his counter that no particulars about the complainants and sale details of the batteries are given for reference of OP.2 is not acceptable by us because the complainants have vividly explained the sale details in their complaints and filed copies of documents in support of their cases.  Hence there should not be any doubt regarding sale of batteries by OP.1 to the complainants which are manufactured by OP.2.

9.                     The OP.1 stated that after receipt of defective batteries from the complainants, he forwarded the same to the service branch of OP.2 but the OP.2 denies receipt of any defective battery.  Generally in case of any defect in goods purchased, the customers approach the dealer.  Accordingly the complainants have approached the dealer of OP.2 and the dealer also admits that he has received the defective batteries within the warranty period and forwarded the same to service branch of OP.2.  If the OP.2 denies the receipt of batteries, then it is the problem between the dealer and manufacturer for which the poor customers should not suffer in any manner.  If this particular dispute arose in between the dealer and OP.1, it is the duty of OP.2 to contact his dealer and take suitable steps to resolve the dispute but a bare denial through the counter that he has not received the batteries from OP.1 is bad in law.  Further the OP.2 stated that the complainants have not registered any complaint before him but failed to show the complaint register before the Fora for that particular period maintained by OP.2 in order to prove his case.  So a bare denial will not support to his allegations.

10.                   The OP.2 sells the batteries through its dealer and hence he should maintain cordial relationship with his dealer.  As the OP.2 is armed with engineers and technicians to deal with the problems of the customers, he should contact the OP.1 in regular intervals to give prompt service to the customers which is the main part of after sale service but without doing that, the OP.2 is busy in tussle with the dealer and the customers as well.

11.                   The OP.2 stated that the OP.1 is dealing with other brand of batteries and the batteries are being manufactured by OP.1 under the brand name of OP.2.  No evidence is adduced by OP.2 that the product of OP.1 is being sold in the brand name of OP.2.  It is merely a speculation on the part of OP.2.  Rather the bills and warranty cards show a clear picture regarding manufacturing details of batteries to which the OP.2 belongs.  As appeared in the warranty cards, the batteries cover warranty of 18 months but it is seen that within one year or so of purchase, almost all the batteries became non functional.

12.                   Further the Ops are grumbling about improper usage of batteries by the complainants.  If this is so, only passing instructions over phone to the customers regarding usage is not sufficient and this is not an appropriate method of after sale service after enjoying profits out of sale.  In the present cases, the manufacturer as well as dealer supplied defective batteries and the OP.2 failed to provide satisfactory after sale service in spite of forwarding of complaints and defective batteries by OP.1.  In the above circumstances, we find no deficiency in service on the part of OP.1 as he has performed his duties satisfactorily.  When the OP.1 after his satisfaction forwarded the batteries to OP.2 under warranty claim, the burden to prove defects in the batteries becomes less for the complainants and non taking of timely action by OP.2, in our opinion, amounts to serious deficiency in service on his part.  Hence, the complainants are entitled for refund of the cost of their batteries with interest from the date of their respective purchase.  Further the complainants are entitled for compensation as they are deprived of making use of the batteries purchased by them and the OP.2 is liable to pay such compensation to the complainant.  Further due to such inaction of OP.2, the complainants have come up with this case incurring some expenditure.  Considering the sufferings of the complainants, we feel a sum of Rs.1000/- towards compensation and cost in favour of the complainants will meet the ends of justice.

13.                   Hence ordered that the complaint petitions are allowed in part and the OP No.2 is directed to refund the cost of batteries to the complainants as mentioned in the table supra (which is a part of order) with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of their respective purchases.  The OP.2 is further directed to pay Rs.1000/- towards compensation and costs to each complainant.  The above directions are to be complied by OP.2 within 30 days from the date of communication of this order.

(to dict.)