CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD

Dated this the 25^th  day of April, 2017

PRESENT  : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT                           Date of filing:18/07/2016

                  : SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER

                  : SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER

CC/101/2016

Ajmeer.A,

S/o.Abdul Azeez,                                                           :   Complainant

Peeliyode,

Pattancheri,

Chittur, Palakkad.

                                                Vs                                  

1.  The Proprietor, 

Shakthi Agencies,

14/2021(4),

Shakthi Complex,                                                                   :Opposite Parties

Kalmandapam, Palakkad.

2. Manager,

Exide Industries Ltd.

      Exide house No.59,

      Chooringhe Road, Kolkatta.

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma K.P.Member

The complainant in this case had bought a battery for his two wheeler(scooter) on 06/10/2014.  Within 8 months it has damaged, and he had approached the 1^st opposite party and they provided him with another battery on 25.08.2015.  The second one was also damaged within 2 months.  He again approached the 1^st opposite party but they refused either to repair or to replace it and told him that ‘we couldn’t do anything, you can complaint direct to the company’.  Complainant alleges that he had returned both the batteries to the 1^st opposite party.  He further submits that he is a cloth merchant by profession and without his two wheeler he couldn’t do his business.  There is about 46 kms distance from his residence to the 1^st opposite party’s office and he had to approach the 1^st opposite party on several occasions.  He had also spent Rs.6,000/-for petrol and other expenses and he had to travel by auto for his business purpose without his two wheeler.  Hence he claims an amount of Rs.25,000/-as compensation from the opposite parties. 

Complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties for appearance. 1^st opposite party entered appearance and filed their version denying the allegations stated in the complainant.  1^st opposite party contended that the complainant being a business man engaged in business of cloth and that the battery regarding which the complaint is filed being used by him in his two wheeler used for his business activity, he cannot be included under the definition of consumer under section 2.1.(d) of CP Act.  1^st opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased battery manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party for his two wheeler on 06/10/2014 from the 1^st opposite party and it is also admitted that the complainant had approached the 1^st opposite party once complaining about the said battery and that the same was replaced by the 1^st opposite party on 25/08/2015 as the said complaint was within the warranty period.  Subsequent allegation made by the complainant that the 2^nd  battery also got damaged within a period of 2 months and that when the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party it was informed by the 1^st opposite party that nothing can be done and that the complainant can approach the 2^nd opposite party with his complaints and the complainant had handed over both batteries to the 1^st opposite party are all denied by the 1^st opposite party.

Complainant, after getting his battery replaced by the 1^st opposite party on 25/08/2016, had never come up with a claim to get the same also replaced and he had come only for getting his battery checked up and the check up was provided by the 1^st opposite party free of cost.  1^st opposite party had informed the complaint after check up that there is no problem with the battery and that the electrical system of the two wheeler need to be checked up and to take his two wheeler to a service center for the same.  Complainant had never approached the 1^st opposite party after that with any complaint as alleged by him.

Replacement warranty was provided by the manufacturer (2^nd opposite party) and is available only for period of 1½ years and for that the claim is to be made to the manufacturer within the said period and any claim made beyond that period would not be considered by the manufacturer.  Complainant had purchased the battery on 06/10/2014 and if any complainant as alleged would be available to the complainant only till April 2016.

Battery would get damaged or drained out if the electrical system of the vehicle, such as self starter, wiring, power cut off device for preventing the battery from getting over charge etc.are not working properly and under such circumstance the battery would not get properly charged and in certain cases even the cells inside the battery would get damaged due to over charging and the battery would not get charged and would not generate necessary power output.  Battery damage caused due to the aforesaid reasons cannot be attributed any manufacturing defect and either the manufacturer or the dealer can be held liable for it.  If the batteries fitted in the complainant’s two wheeler is getting frequently damaged as alleged by the complainant the same could only be due to the faulty electrical system of the complainant’s two wheeler.

Grievance projected by the complainant is baseless and the complainant had to get the battery being checked up by an expert and a report for the same filed by the said expert can only determine the nature of the complaint.

The 2^nd opposite party also filed version to the same effect as alleged by the 1^st opposite party.  Complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed by him in the complaint and it has to be dismissed.  

The complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. Opposite party filed application seeking permission to cross examine the complainant.  Petition was allowed and complainant was directed to appear for cross examination.  In spite of several chances complainant was absent for cross examination. Opposite parties 1&2 also filed chief affidavits. Ext.A1 was marked on the part of the complainant and Ext.B1 was marked on the part of opposite party. Evidence was closed and matter was heard.

Issues that arise for consideration

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost entitled to the complainant?

Issues 1 & 2

We have perused the documents produced from both sides.  Since opposite party has admitted that the complainant has purchased battery from 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party on 06.10.2014 and that the 1^st opposite party had replaced the defective battery on 25/08/2015 which was within the warranty period.  But there is no evidence before the Forum to prove that the complainant’s second batteries also turn defective within a period of two months.  The opposite parties had also denied the said allegations.  They had also submitted that replacement warranty was provided only for a period of 1½ years and for that the claim has to be made before April 2016.  They had also submitted that if the batteries fitted in the complainant’s two wheeler its getting frequently damaged it could only be due to the faulty electrical system of the complainant’s two wheeler.  Moreover the complaint has not taken any steps to prove the battery being checked by an expert and to call for a report to show that the battery is having manufacturing defect.  The complainant was absent for cross examination also.  From the above circumstances it is viewed that the complainant has failed to prove the allegations stated in the complaint and the Forum is in the dark with regard to the complaints alleged by the complainant.  Hence the complaint is dismissed without cost.

  Pronounced in the open court on 25^th  April 2017.   

          Sd/-

     Smt. Shiny. P.R

                         President

                              Sd/-

             Smt. Suma. K.P

                           Member

                                                                                                 Sd/-   

           Sri.V.P.Anantha Narayanan

                           Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1- Complainant had purchased the battery on 06/10/2014 ,

           invoice No.550

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1- Terms and Conditions of Warranty

Witness marked on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost Allowed

Nil