SRI. K. ANIRUDHAN (MEMBER) Sri. K.J. Samuel has filed this complaint against the opposite party alleging deficiency in service. The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:- He had purchased an Excide 01-04.500 SL.No.:ICL-045501 Battery from the opposite party for a sum of Rs.6500/- vide Bill No.739 dt. 31.5.2004 and it was for his inverter which is installed in his residence. Opposite party had issued warranty card for a period of 30 months from the date of purchase. But it became defective due to the ‘no charge problem’ and it affected the working of the inverter. The defect of the battery has not been rectified even though the technician of the opposite party had inspected the battery. On 18.8.2006, the technician of the opposite party had taken back the battery from his residence, together with the originals of the guarantee card and purchase bill. After from 2 days the opposite party had installed another battery in his house by stating that it was another original Battery. So far the opposite party had not issued any card or bill for the second set. Opposite party stated that the guarantee card for the set will be sent by post from the company. A sticker bearing No.3 x 500 13713 has been pasted in the battery and that opposite party had not served any documents for the battery. Opposite party had installed the earlier set in his residence on 18.11.2006. But the second set also became defective again due to ‘no charge problem’. At the time of taking the battery for rectification, the opposite party had collected the inverter also for check up. The inverter has no problem and the defect was only in the battery. Hence this complaint, seeking a direction to get a new battery without any defect, together with compensation and costs. 2. Notice was sent to the opposite party. He entered appearance before this Forum and filed version. In the version, opposite party has stated that he had not supplied the battery in the address of the complainant. He had supplied the set in the address Samuel K.J., A & Z Agencies, Cherthala. The complainant is not a consumer and the complaint has the defect of non-joinder of necessary parties. He had supplied a new battery to the complainant on 24.7.2004 vide No. 1C4-45985-IT500. Since that set became defective, he had supplied another battery on 28.4.2006 vide No.3 x 500 13713, warranty was only for 30 months and it was valid only from 31.5.2004 to 31.11.2006 and that the complainant is not eligible for warranty claim. He had supplied the battery having quality company. Complainant is not entitled to get any relief. 3. Considering the contentions of the parties, this Forum has raised the issues:- 1) Whether there is any efficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? 2) Compensation and costs. 4. Issues 1 and 2:- Complainant has filed proof affidavit in support of his allegations and produced document (Ext.A1 marked) and he has been examined as PW1 and cross examined by the opposite party. Ext.A1 is the purchase bill No.739 dt. 31.5.2004. It shows that the opposite party had sold the Excide Batter vide No.IT 500 – SL. No.1C4 – 045501 to the complainant for a sum of Rs.6500/-. Opposite party has not filed any proof affidavit in support of his contentions or produced any document. 5. On a careful readings of the entire matter of this case, it can be seen that the opposite party has sold the Battery of M/s.Exide company to the complainant for a sum of Rs.6500/- on 31.5.2004 (Ext.A1). Opposite had also issued warranty card to the complainant at the time of purchase of the set, for a period of 30 months. It is stated that, the set became defective within few days after the installation of the same in the residence of the complainant. The defect was occurred due to the ‘no charge problem’. When contacted the opposite party by the complainant another battery was supplied after taking the earlier set and the opposite party had not supplied any warranty card or bill to the complainant for the second set. The entire aspects of this case, shows that there is unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party. Since the set became defective within few days from the date of purchase and installation of the same in the residence of the complainant, the opposite party is bound to replace the set with new one. The contentions of the opposite party regarding the warranty cannot be accepted. The original set purchased on 31.5.2004 and it became defective within few days after purchase and at that time the set was within the period of warranty. So the opposite party is fully entitled to replace the set with a new one as per warranty. But the opposite party had taken a negligent view in supplying a new set to the complainant. The whole matter of this case shows that there is grossest deficiency in service and culpable negligence on the part of the opposite party. For this the opposite party is answerable to the complainant. The action of the opposite party is illegal and unauthorized. Since there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, he is entitled to pay compensation and costs to the complainant. The whole matter of this case shows that the allegations raised by the complainant against the opposite party is to be treated in genuine. The contentions raised by the opposite party lacks bona fides and it has no merit. So we are of the strong view that the complaint is to be allowed as prayed for. All the issues are found in favour of the complainant. In the result, we hereby direct the opposite party to supply a brand new Excide Battery (defect free set) having the same price and specification to the complainant together with a compensation amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the mental agony, pain, sufferings, loss, inconvenience of the complainant, due to the grossest deficiency in service, culpable negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party and a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) as costs for this proceedings. We further direct the opposite party to comply with this order within 20 days from the date of receipt of this order. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 24th day of September, 2009. Sd/- Sri. K. Anirudhan: Sd/- Sri. Jimmy Korah: Sd/- Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi: Appendix:- Evidence of the complainant :- PW1 - K.J.Samuel (Witness) Ext.A1 - Purchase bill for Rs.6500/- (Photo copy)
Evidence of the opposite party:- Nil
// True Copy // By Order Senior Superintendent To Complainant/Oppo. Party/S.F. Typed by:-pr/- Compared by:- | 
