DATE OF FILING-5.4.2012
DATE OF DISPOSAL-7.2.2014
O R D E R
Mrs.M.Pradhan,Member
The case of the complainant in short is that he had purchased four numbers of batteries of 12EC 25L of Exide make at the rate of Rs.2313/- each for his Eco-bike from Opposite Party No.1. The total cost of the batteries including VAT comes to Rs.10,501/- vide invoice No.RI/695 dt.27.10.2011. The model and serial numbers of the batteries were 12EC 25L Sr.No.SF1008413, 12EC 25L Sr.No.SF1008414, 12EC 25L Sr.No.SF1008415 and 12EC 25L Sr No.SF1008416. The Opposite Party No.1, at the time of purchase issued warranty card as supplied by Opp.Party No.3, the manufacturer of the batteries. After using the batteries for a couple of months, it started malfunctioning to which the complainant brought it to the notice of Opp.Party No.1 on 1.2.2012 for checking and replacement. He on the same day handed over all the four batteries to O.P.No.2 for checking. After checking, Opposite Party No.2 did not accept the warranty and opined that the battery found in bulging condition due to overcharge and rejected the batteries. As such, the complainant approached to Opp.Party No.1 for its replacement as the same were within the warranty condition of the company. The complainant thereafter approached a registered voluntary organization who acts for the cause of the consumers viz.VEDIC,Brahmapur. The VEDIC sought for show cause from the Opposite Parties vide its letter dated 27.2.12. On receipt of the letter from Vedic, the Opposite Party No.1 replied through his Advocate in letter dt.13.3.12 denying his liability and to pay any compensation for the loss sustained by the complainant. Opp.Parties No.2 and 3 remained silent in the matter. The complainant was desperately arranged another batteries of different company for his said eco-bike. When all the efforts of the complainant to get the batteries replaced or repaired from the Opposite Parties did not yield any result, he finding no other way out has preferred this consumer complaint under Sec-12 of the C.P.Act,1986 praying for refund of the cost of the batteries with interest and compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the loss ,mental agony and harassment sustained by him due to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the Opposite Parties.
2- Upon notice the Opposite Party No.1 entered its appearance and filed the written version wherein it is stated that he is only the retail seller of Exide batteries . He sells batteries according to the norms and rules provided by Opp.Party No.3. He shifted his burden on Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 who are the authorized service centre and manufacturer of the said batteries and prayed for exoneration of his liability.
The Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 have put their appearance through learned counsel and filed written version jointly wherein they have resisted the claim of the complainant. They have raised objection on maintainability of the case on the ground of cause of action and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is denied that the batteries purchased by the complainant have any manufacturing defect. It is stated that the batteries were received from O.P.No.1 for testing in discharged condition. On examination it is revealed that the batteries were found in the bulging condition due to over charge which is not amounting to manufacturing defect. Therefore, the claim of the complainant was not accepted due to non-fulfilling the condition of warranty provided by the company. It is also denied that any legal notice was received by them from the complainant to answer it. It is, therefore, contended that the case of the complainant has no merit and the case being frivolous and vexatious, is liable to be dismissed with cost.
3- The complainant as well as the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 in support of their cases filed certain documents which are placed on record.
4- We have gone through the case in detail, perused the documents filed on record and perused the written arguments submitted by the respective parties and heard the case at a length from both the sides. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased four numbers of batters in question from Opposite Party No.1 bearing its model No.12EC 25L and Serial Nos.SF1008413,SF1008414,SF1008415 and SF1008416 respectively on payment of Rs.10,501/- vide Invoice No.RI/695 dt. 27.10.2011. Annexure-1 is the Retail invoice filed by the complainant. The Opposite Party Nos.2 is the Service Centre and Opposite Party No.3 is the manufacturer of the said batteries. Annexure-5, the copy of warranty card of the batteries provided by the manufacturer speaks that the said batteries have 12 months warranty from the date of purchase. It is the case of the complainant that his batteries were found malfunctioning during the period of warranty. When he brought to the notice of the O.P.No.1, the same was produced before the Opposite Party No.2, to check the said batteries. The Opposite Party No.2 after examination through his Engineer reported technically that the said batteries were found in bulging condition due to over charge which is subsequently opined that bulged due to over charge is not a manufacturing defect. Therefore, the Opposite Parties denied its liability.
5- The complainant claims that he utilised the batteries for about four months only and it is pleaded by learned counsel for the complainant that as per the warranty if any defect is found within 6 months of its purchase, the same would be replaced free of cost. On the other hand, the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 pleaded that free replacement warranty is made subject to fulfilling of conditions stipulated in warranty card. But the claim of the complainant was rejected since it was not covered under warranty condition. From the above averments of both the parties, we find that the batteries is replaceable only if it is in warranty condition. In the case of the complainant it is checked and reported that bulged due to over charging is not manufacturing defect. It is not specifically specified in the warranty what the Opposite Party No.2 and 3 taken plea to reject the batteries. It is not proved that due to mis-handling or mis-management on the part of the complainant which led to damage of batteries. In fact, the batteries were found defect within its warranty period. No case of mishandling of such batteries is found on the part of the complainant. The batteries of such a reputed brand run for years together and the manufacturer provides warranty only to motivate the consumers for replacement or repair during warranty period if found defect of their product. In the instant case, when the batteries were found malfunctioning within a period of four months of its operation, under such circumstance, it is to be believed that there is inherent defect in the batteries as purchased by the complainant. Therefore, denial in replacement or repairing of the batteries during warranty period made by the Opposite Parties can be termed as unfair trade practice which has amounted to deficiency in service. In the position, the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate to the complainant for the loss, mental agony and sufferings of the complainant at the hands of the Opposite Parties. Since the complainant in the meantime has purchased another batteries to run the eco-bike, so we are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties are to refund the price of the batteries i.e. Rs.10,501/-. A compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss, mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant due to deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties would meet the ends of justice. While passing this order we referred to the decisions filed by the learned counsel for the complainant of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi reported in 11(2012)CPJ 362 NC and 2012 CPJ 364 NC respectively in support of his case, which we rely on it. However, in the light of the case of the of the complainant, we rely another decision of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the case of SAS Motors Ltd. Vrs.Anant Haridas Choudhari reported in III(2013) CPJ 520 N.C. wherein it is held that “ manufacturing defect is proved if it is repaired many times within its warranty period. Defect listed in complaint corroborated by job cards. No expert advice required and order passed in favour of the complainant”
6- In the result, we allow the case of the complainant against the Opposite Parties. We direct the Opposite Parties to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,501/-(Rupees ten thousand five hundred one) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The Opposite Parties are also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/-(Rupees three thousand) towards compensation within the above period. The case is accordingly disposed of with an order of Rs.1000/- as cost of litigation to be paid by the Opposite Parties to the complainant within the above period of time.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost.
Dictated and corrected by me on this 7th day of February,2014.
I AGREE(MEMBER) MEMBER
