DATE OF FILING: 8.5.2014
DATE OF DISPOSAL: 06.01.2017
Miss S.L.Pattnaik, President:
The complainant has filed this consumer dispute Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties ( in short the O.Ps) and for redressal of his grievances.
2. Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he is the owner of a Tractor bearing Registration No. OR-07D 4339 which is used by the complainant for the purpose of his personal agriculture works. The complainant has purchased an ADDO blue battery for his aforesaid Tractor vide battery model No. EA 75 MF and serial No. 27140390111 from the O.P.No.1 and accordingly the O.P.No.1 has issued a money receipt vide cash memo No. 80 dated 15.3.2012 for an amount of Rs.5200/-only. Initially the battery was working smoothly, but in the month of August 2013 during the warranty period the battery was not working properly, as such the tractor of the complainant was not started through the said battery, for which the complainant made complain before the O.P.No.1. As per advice of the O.P.No.1 the complainant handed over the battery to the O.P.No.1 on dated 10.8.2013 for the purpose of rectification of the defect and the O.P.No.1 was not able to rectify the defect in the battery and informed the complainant on 14.8.2013 that the defective battery was sent to the O.P.No.2 by the O.P.No.1 for replacement against a new battery as per the terms and conditions stipulated under the warranty as the warranty period of the battery was in force. After lapse of about 25 days when the complainant asked the O.P.No.1 about replacement of the battery, the O.P.No.1 expressed his inability to hand over the same to the complainant as he has not received the same from the O.P.No.2. On repeated approaches made by the complainant, the O.Ps failed to provide the service to the complainant as per the terms and conditions stipulated under the warranty and they have always avoided to perform their liability by providing a new battery to the complainant, for which the complainant is facing lots of inconvenience as well as the mental agony. The complainant sent advocate notice by Registered post/AD on 2.10.2013 to the O.Ps stating thereon to handover the new battery to the complainant within 15 days. But till today the O.Ps have not taken any steps for replacement of the defective battery against a new one. After receipt of the notice, the O.P.No.2 did not choose for at least give any reply to the complainant and the O.P.No.1 has given reply to the Advocate for the complainant through Registered Post/AD on 2.11.2013 stating thereon that in spite of best efforts of the O.P.No.1, the defects of the battery could not be rectified, for which the O.P.No.1 has sent the battery to the manufacturer for replacement as it is the sole responsibility of the manufacturer to replace the battery, but till today the O.Ps have not taken any steps for replacement of the defective battery in spite of repeated approaches made by the complainant from time to time. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps the complainant prayed to direct the O.Ps to replace defective battery against a new one or to refund the cost of the battery i.e. Rs.5200/- , compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards mental agony and monetary loss and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- in the interest of justice.
The complainant filed the following documents in support of his case.
1. Photocopy of cash memo No.80 dated 15.3.2012 issued by Priya Battery Centre.
2. Photocopy of the warranty card.
3. Photocopy of advocate notice to the O.Ps on 2.10.2013.
4. Photocopy of reply of the advocate notice by the O.P.No.1 dated 2.11.2013.
3. Despite valid notice, the Opposite Parties failed to enter their appearance and as a result the O.P. No.1 was declared exparte on dated 17.7.2014 and the O.P.No.2 was declared exparte on dated 19.7.2016 respectively.
4. On the date of ex-parte hearing we heard argument from the advocate for complainant. We have gone through the complaint petition, written argument and documents of complainant available in the case record. The complainant filed affidavit in support of his case that during the warranty period the battery was not working properly. As per advice the complainant handed over the defective battery to the O.P.No.1 on 10.08.2013. Inspite of best efforts of the O.P. No.1 the defects in the said battery could not be rectified for which the O.P.No.1 sent the battery to the O.P.No.2 i.e. manufacturer for replacement as it is the sole responsibility of the manufacturer to replace the battery, but till today the O.Ps have not taken any effective steps for replacement of the defective battery of the complainant against a new one inspite of repeated approaches and demands as made by the complainant from time to time. In this consumer dispute, primafacie we find that the battery became defective during warranty period. For this the complainant redressed his grievance before O.P.No.1 and also acted as per his advice but the O.Ps did not take any effective steps to rectify the defect. Even the advocate notice did not yield any result. The O.Ps even after notice from this Forum did not take any steps to appear and contest their case. The complainant has purchased the battery on payment of consideration, hence he is a consumer there is no dispute. But when a consumer product found defective and even after several approaches O.Ps are not taking any steps to rectify the same is amounts to deficiency in service. Moreover, in this case the O.Ps even not controverted the version of the complainant. In absence of any version or argument from the O.Ps to controvert the version of complainant, we are constraint to hold that the alleged battery was defective during the warranty period.
5.On this point we rely on the decision of our own State Commission, Cuttack reported in 91 (2001) CLT (O.S.C.) 29, Sri Binod Kumar Bhawsinka versus the Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. and others where the Hon’ble court held that “Manufacturer/dealer , if fails to rectify the defects during the warranty period, it amounts to deficiency in service.” And “Consumer Protection Act, 1986- Section 2(1)(d)- Sale of a tractor battery with warranty, There is a contract for effecting repairs on replace. The complainant being a party to the contract is a consumer”. Admittedly, the tractor battery was purchased on dated 15.3.2012 through the retail invoice of Priya battery centre (O.P.No.1), copy of money receipt bearing serial No. 80 issued by O.P.No.1. The problem cited by the complainant is also covered under the warranty services as is seen from the warranty card filed by complainant. On the point we rely on the decision of National Commission New Delhi decided on 14th March 1996 LAWS (NCD) 1996-3-23 in Amtrex Ambience versus M/s Alpha Radios and another where Hon’ble National Commission held that manufacturer/Authorized dealer fail to rectify the defects during warranty period the same amounts to deficiency in service.
6. It is well understood that a purchase occurred with some hope and aspirations which are not full filled in this case and the purchaser suffered from the transaction to a considerable high amount frustrating the whole purchase of transaction. It is the bounded duty of the seller/manufacturer to attend the said defects whenever a new vehicle battery is sold to a consumer there is an implied contract that the vehicle battery being sold does not suffer from and will not suffer from any kind of fault, or imperfection or shortcoming in standard which is required to be maintained. We find that complainant has established his case that unfair trade practice has been committed by the O.Ps. So the complainant is entitled for relief from O.Ps.
In the light of the fact and circumstances of the complaint and the nature of evidence placed on record, we arrive at the conclusion that, the battery in question was defective and needs replacement. The complainant has also claimed compensation. We feel that he is entitled to be compensated for the inconvenience and hardship he has suffered because the complainant was deprived of the use of the tractor of his personal agriculture works. We feel there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. In the light of the above decision of law we allow the case against both O.Ps who are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective battery.
In the result, we direct the Opposite Parties who are jointly and severally liable to replace the defective battery and to supply new battery of the same model or in alternative to refund the cost of the said battery Rs.5200/- (Rupees Five Thousand Two Hundred ) only to the complainant. The Opposite parties also further burdened with compensation and cost of litigation which we quantify to be Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) only as a whole in the facts and circumstance of the case which in our considered view, would meet the ends of justice in the instant case. Compliance of the order be made within two months from the date of receipt of the order.
The order is pronounced on this day of 6th January 2017 under the signature and seal of this Forum. The office is directed to supply copy of order to the parties free of cost and be sent to the server
