CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 202/11
Monday the 30th day of January, 2012
Petitioner : Manoj V.R.,
Vallinal, Kunnonni PO
Poonjar Thekkekara village
Meenachil Taluk.
Vs.
Opposite party : Proprietor,
Rose Battery Palace
Exide Battery Showroom,
Erattupetta-1 PO, Meenachil Taluk.
2) Exide Industries Ltd.,
59E Chowringee Road,
Kolkata-700 020.
(Adv.Peter & Karunakar Lawyers)
ORDER
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Case of the petitioner filed, on 5/8/11 is as follows.
Petitioner purchased an Exide Eko battery from the 1st opposite party manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. Petitioner is using the said battery fitted to his Autorikshaw. On 26/7/11, while the vehicle was entrusted to the workshop for repairing, petitioner entrusted the battery for recharging it in the shop of the 1st opposite party. Battery is entrusted to the 1st opposite party, during its warranty period. Opposite party promised the petitioner that they will supply a defect free battery in the afternoon of the 27/7/11. Opposite party purposefully damaged the battery by an iron road and was kept idle it in the front of the shop. Petitioner on several days contacted the opposite party for replacement of the defective battery but opposite party so far not replaced the same. According to the petitioner act of opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, so he prays for return of a new battery instead of the defective battery. Petitioner claims Rs.3500/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.
Notice of both opposite parties served, 1st opposite party has not entered appearance or filed any version after receipt of the notice. 1st opposite party is set expartee.
2nd opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. According to the 2nd opposite party they are reputed manufacturer and distributors of industrial and automotive batteries in India for the past 50 years. According to the 2nd opposite party petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of warranty because conditions stipulated in the warranty card are not strictly complied by the petitioner. Petitioner is not liable to get the benefit of warranty, as the defect alleged is excluded from the warranty coverage. Petitioner never approached the opposite party for the alleged complaint stated in the petition. 2nd opposite party has no connection with 1st opposite party and he is not a dealer of 2nd opposite party. Handing over of alleged defective battery to the 1st opposite party is not known to the 2nd opposite party. Opposite party never promised to give another battery and crack down the alleged battery. Petitioner has not produced the defective battery for examination or inspection in the service centre of the opposite parties at any point of time. According to the 2nd opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part. Hence they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.
Points for determinations are:
i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
ii) Reliefs and costs?
Evidence in this case consists of deposition of petitioner as PW1 and affidavit filed by 2nd opposite party. Ext.A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner.
Point No.1
Crux of the case of the petitioner is that, petitioner entrusted a defective battery during the warranty period to the 1st opposite party. 1st opposite party promised to give another battery and crack down the defective battery which is entrusted to them. On demand 1st opposite party never return the battery as assured. PW1 during cross examination admitted that he never given any written complaint to the 2nd opposite party with regard to alleged complaints. He further deposed that he has no complaints against 2nd opposite party. Since 1st opposite party is set expartee. We are constrained to rely on the deposition of the petitioner as PW1. In our view act of the opposite party in cracking down a battery which was entrusted to the 1st opposite party for curing the defect amounts to deficiency in service. So point no.1 is found accordingly.
Point No.2
In view of the findings in point no.1 petition is allowed.
In the result 1st opposite party is ordered to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs.3500/-, as cost of the Exide Eko battery. 1st opposite party is also ordered to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- as cost of the proceedings.
Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of a copy of the order.
If the order is not complied petitioner is entitled to 9% interest for the award amount from date of filing of the petition till realisation
Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of January, 2012.
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Documents of the petitioner
Ext.A1-Copy of warranty booklet.
Ext.A2- Copy of sale bill
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
