CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25th day of June, 2015
PRESENT : SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT Date of filing:27/08/2013
: SMT.SUMA K.P, MEMBER
CC/148/2013
George Thomas,
S/o.K.T.John,
Kizhakkarakkat House, : Complainant
Palakkayam Post,
Palakkad-678591.
(By Adv.Remika.C) Vs
1.The Proprietor,
Spark Auto Electricals (EXIDE),
Main Road, Opp.Police Station,
Mannarkkad, Palakkad.
(By Adv. T.M.Abdul Rasheed)
2. The Manager, : Opposite Parties
EXIDE Industries Ltd.,
Ist floor, D.NO.33/2469F3,
Devi Building,NH-47,
Bye-Pass, Labour colony road,
Skaraparambu, Thamanam P.O.,
Cochin-682032.
(By Adv.V.M.Kurian and Others)
O R D E R
By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased an inverter battery from the first opposite party on 02-06-2011 for an amount of Rs.6,500/-.After 9months of purchase he noticed that electricity bills were subsequently increasing and the charge of the battery was decreasing. The complainant approached first opposite party and entrusted the battery for repair. The first opposite party returned it after repair and charged Rs.90/- as service charge. Even then battery was not in proper condition. The complainant alleges that he used to pay an average amount of Rs.700/- as electricity charges regularly. But after the installation of the inverter electricity bills were subsequently increased and he had to pay more than Rs.1000/-. He got inspected of all the electrical equipments at his home and found intact. He informed the KSEB authorities and got the meter changed. Even then there was no change in the current bill. After 01-08-2013 the battery was completely damaged and no charge remained in the battery. Hence he informed the first opposite party about the condition of the battery, but first opposite party informed that they couldn’t do anything. He contacted another mechanic and inspected the battery. The mechanic after inspection informed that the cells inside the battery had completely been destroyed so that no charge can be done to the battery. This was the reason for the increase of electricity consumption for which the complainant had to pay higher amount as electricity charges. The complainant changed the battery and installed the inverter again. The subsequent bill of electricity amounts to Rs.480/. The complainant further submits that he had suffered mentally and financially due to the poor condition of the battery and hence claimed Rs.10, 000/- towards compensation. He also claimed additional amount paid towards electricity charges and also the amount expensed for changing the electricity meter and the amount spent for changing the battery from the opposite party as damages.
Notice was issued to the opposite party for appearance. The first opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting the following. They contended that he is only a dealer and the manufacturer had to be impleaded. The complaint is filed after the expiry of guarantee period and as such he is not liable. The inverter was not purchased from first opposite party and only the battery was purchased from him. If there is any defect with regard to the inverter the battery may also be damaged. If there is any defect with regard to the battery it may be due to the defect of the inverter. The hike of the electricity bill of the complainant was never due to the defect of the battery. The complaint is filed on experimental basis and it has to be dismissed. The consumption of electricity may vary due to several reasons. The first opposite party is in no way liable for it. The complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. Opposite party also filed chief affidavit. The complainant filed application to implead manufacturer as a supplemental OP2. The application was allowed and notice was issued to supplemental OP2. OP2 entered appearance and filed their version contenting as follows:-The complaint is filed with some oblique motives to extract money from the opposite parties. There is no manufacturing defect or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. They admit that the complainant purchased a battery manufactured by them. The battery purchased by the complainant had a guarantee of 18months. The complainant never informed any complaints of the battery to the second opposite party. The complainant never produced the battery for inspection after the complaint. The battery manufactured and supplied by the second opposite party did not suffer any manufacturer defect. If at all there is any defect in the product it will be subject to the warranty condition. From the complaint itself, it is proved that the battery under alleged complaint is beyond the warranty period and they are not liable for the same. The alleged opinion of the mechanic that the cell of the battery is damaged and the so called increase in the electricity bills is due to the non charging of the battery is false and devoid of any merit. The complainant has not suffered any monitory difficulties and mental agony as alleged in the complaint and he is not entitled to any amount as prayed for. The various expenses shown in the complaint are highly excessive, ex-orbitant and without any basis. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. Complainant filed application for expert opinion of the battery in issue. Prof. C.Krishna Prassad from department of Electrical & Electronics N.S.S. College Akathethara was appointed as expert commission to examine the battery and file a report. Commission examined the battery and report was filed. Complainant filed objections to the commission’s report. Additional affidavit was also filed by the complainant. The complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext. A1-A6 & C1 was marked.
Matter was heard.
The Issues that arise for consideration are :
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?
2. If so, what is the relief ?
Heard both parties.
Issues 1 & 2
We have perused the documents on record. It is evident from A1-A6 that the complainant’s electricity bills was increased subsequently. The reason for the same was alleged to be the defective condition of the battery. The second opposite party has denied the above contention. Hence it is the bounden duty of the complainant to prove that the battery was defective. The complainant has taken out an expert commission to prove the same. But from the expert commissioner’s report it cannot be found that there was any manufacturing defect with regard to the battery. Instead he has stated that “the battery is presently in a very much deteriorated condition and is not holding up any significant charge. Repeated charging attempts didn’t produce any noticeable improvements”. He has not stated the reason for overcharging of the battery. The complainant states that he had changed the battery and then, electricity bills had come down. But the complainant had not produced any evidence to show that he had changed the battery. It was found from exhibits A5 series that the electricity meter was changed on 22-04-2013. But the very subsequent bill had also shows an amount of Rs.1,560/-. Even if we assume that the consumption of electricity was increased due to the defect of the battery, the complainant had not proved the said fact beyond reasonable doubt. He had not examined the mechanic who had stated that the cell inside the battery was completely damaged. There is also no evidence to prove that the increase of electricity consumption was due to the said aspects. In this context we couldn’t attribute negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant had failed to prove the allegations alleged in the complaint. In the result the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of June, 2015.
Sd/-
Smt .Shiny.P.R.
President
Sd/-
Smt. Suma.K.P.
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext.A1 – Inverter battery bill dated 02/06/2011.
Ext.A2 – Service bill issued by OP dated 21/03/12
Ext.A3 – Electricity bill No.32518 dated 23/04/11
Ext.A4 Series – KSEB Bills 15Nos.
Ext.A5 Series – Electricity bills 4 Nos.
Ext.A6 – Warranty Booklet of Battery
Commission Report
C1- Prof.C.Krishnaprasad.
Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party
Nil
Witness examined on the side of complainant
PW1 –George Thomas.K
Witness examined on the side of opposite party
Nil
Cost allowed
Nil
