SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, seeking to get an order directing opposite parties to refund an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- after taking back the defective products supplied by them and Rs.5,00,000/- by way of different heads narrated and Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and pain with cost of proceedings.
Brief facts of the case of complainant are that the complainant placed order for the UPS, battery and allied items. The complainant submits that the purchase of the above said articles was in month of August 2019. The total consideration paid to OP No.1 was Rs.7,50,000/-. OP2 is the manufacturer of the product. The supporting batteries supplied belong to Exide Company. All these items were supplied by OP No.1. The product is having an assured manufacturer’s warranty for one year. The complainant submits that due to some delay in obtaining there phase connection, installation of the system was in the month of November 2019. On the date of installation, ie, on 18/11/2019, sales engineer of the 1st OP and service engineer of the 2nd OP came to the house. They demonstrated about the functioning and started operation. But after 5 minutes, fire eminated from the system and it ceased functioning. On 21/11/2019, service Engineer again came with some parts and rectified the defects up to their satisfaction. When enquired about the reason for the problem, they could not give any satisfactory explanation. But they assured that there would to be any further problem. But the functioning was not satisfactory. On 23/11/2019, service engineer again came to check the system. On that day service Engineer told that the system was alright then. But it was not up to the satisfaction of the complainant. So request for complete replacement was put for the endorsed in the field service report of the service engineer of OP N.2. But there after they did not come. The complainant submits the serious complaints again occurred to the system on 18/05/2020 and the system totally ceases functioning. This was properly informed to OP No.1, but he did not respond properly, by saying that the problem is with the charging card etc. Warranty for the product is in force. The complainant submits that, the whole system manufactured and supplied by the OPs have severe manufacturing defects, which was brought into their notice at the first instance itself. There is clear deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice. So he caused to send a lawyer notice to the OPs on 12/11/2020. Even though both of them received the notice, neither of them ventured to send and reply. Hence the complaint.
Notice was duly served to OPs. After receiving notices, OPs 1 and 2 entered appearance through their counsels and filed separate version stating their contentions. OP 1 stated that he is re-seller of electronic equipments and other related equipments including UPS, Battery, Solar power system, LED lights etc. with GST compliance. Complainant was introduced to the OP No.1 through one of his friends who supplied Generator to the complainant. This OP consulted the requirements with one Ranjith, the Regional manager of OP No.2, one Suji Mathew, Proprietor of Signo Solutions (dealer of OP No.2) for an UPS which suits the requirement of the complainant. After briefing about this, to the complainant, he ordered and selected EATON 93E 20 KVA UPS, Exide EL 150. Battery – 34 in numbers, isolation transformer and stand for fastening the Batteries. The same was delivered to the premises of the complainant on 21/09/2019. The UPS was installed on 18/11/2019. As per the parameters of the UPS, it ought to have had 15 AMP charging card. Believing the same charging card was there in the UPS, this OP and the engineers of OP No.2 proceeded of the installation and commission of UPS and the same was connected to the battery, but to our dismay, on installation UPS blasted. On examination it was found that UPS was having 5 AMP Charging card rather than the 15 AMP charging card, as assured and promised by OP No.2. The OP had supplied an isolation transformer to the complainant along with battery as an added support. The transformer was only an optional part for the running t of the UPS. This OP had supplied the isolation transformer;; but the transformer couldn’t support the UPS. In fact without the aid of transformers at any rate the system could be properly operated. OP No.2’s service team and Engineer visited the site further on 21/11/2019 and 23/11/2019. The OP’s field service report dated 23/11/2019 clearly mentions that replaced power card and control card and inter face board” which clearly shows that the UPS was not up to the equality ad it should be. Further submitted that as per the knowledge of this OP, Mr. Renjith, regional Manager of OP No.2 promised the complainant that the UPS will be replaced, this was the sole reason that complainant allowed th OP No.2 to function the defective UPS after repair on 23/11/2019. But thereafter it is learnt that the PO No.2 realized from the promise, due to the financial tug between the Signo Solutions and APT Computer Zone. It is submitted that this OP had delivered 34 Exide batteries which are still operating in the premises of the complainant supporting the new UPS the complainant had purchased. As such it is evident that it was only due to the defect of the UPS supplied by the OP No.2 all the issues erupted, and not due to the defect of transformer. This OP No.1 had not done any deficiency of service pertinent to the complaint lodged by the complainant.
OP2 contended that company is engaged in the manufacture and export of electrical components and system. Based on the orders placed by the complainant, by Invoice NO.76 dated 06/08/2019, Eaton 93 E 20 KVA UPS (SI.No.DN 304LXX04), and by E way Bill No. ACZ/19-20/467 dated 06/08/2019, Eaton 20 KVA 9106-52098-00p, Batt.breaker Enclo and Eaton MCCB, 100 AMPS were supplied to the complainant. In respect of the 1st invoice, it was billed form the 2nd OP’s main channel partner RIL to M/s APT Computer Zone, which in turn, billed to M/s.Signo Solution. M/s.Signo Solution billed to M/s. Ceebit Technologies and M/s. Ceebit Technologies finally sold the product to the complainant (the end customer) in the month of August, 2019. Therefore, the 2nd OP does not aware of the transaction that happened beyond M/s. Signo Solution. Further, APT Computer Zone supplied 93-20 KVA UPS alone to M/s. Signo Solution. Batteries and other accessories like transformer, racks and links were supplied by the 1st OP to the complainant. For which, the 2nd OP is not connected in any way. Further, the batteries planned during the negations, were for 100 AH SMF batteries. But surprisingly, it is found the 150AH Tubular batteries at the site during the time of installation. It is pertinent to point that, the entire mal-functioning was only due to the transformer attached to the system, supplied by 1st OP, who sold the entire system to the end customer; and not due to any defect in 2nd OP’s UPS. The 2nd OP had only supplied UPS and that had no proven defect at all. The 2nd OP submits that, based upon the request from the complainant in the month of December 2019, the service team of the 2nd OP had made installation and there was a breakdown immediately. In the month of January 2020, as DOA (Defective o Arrival) was not approved, the service team had replaced the spares with the required spares and the UPS was working well. From the perusal of the complaint and the sequence of events narrated above, it is clear that the 2nd OP has not committed any deficiency in service and is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by the complainant.
At the evidence stage, the power of attorney holder of the complainant has filed his proof affidavit and examined as Pw1. Ext.A1 to A3 were marked. Ext.A1 is the power of attorney, Ext.A2 is the tax invoice dated 27/07/2019 issued by OP No.1 in favour of complainant. Ext.A3 is the Tax Invoice dated 06/08/2019 issued by OP No.1 in the name of complainant. Ext.A2 is in relation to the purchase of Exide EL 150 AH, Tubular Batteries (34 in Nos.) Ext. A3 is in relation to EACT on 93E 20 KVA UPS. PW1 was subject to cross examination by OPs 1 and 2. On the side of OPs, 1st OP filed his proof affidavit and documents. Examined as Dw1 marked Ext.B1 to B5. Ext.B1 is service report, B2 and B3 are e-mail communications sent by complainant to OP No.2, Ext.B4 and B5 are Tax invoices. Dw1 was also cross-examined in detail by OP No.2 and complainant. Further authorized signatory of OP No.2 filed his proof affidavit, Examined as Dw2, Ext.B6 to B12 were marked. Ext.B6 and B7 are bills, B8 to B11 are E-mail communications of different dates. Ext.B12 is the authorization letter. After that the learned counsels of complainant and OPs 1 and 2 filed their argument notes.
The undisputed facts are the UPS in dispute manufactured by the 2nd OP was sold on 06/08/2019 to the complainant by the 1st OP and in the month of December 2019, the service team of OP NO.2 had made installation and there was a break down immediately. There is also no dispute that the battery was provided by the 1st OP.
Complainant case is that on the very 1st day of installation, the system burst out that was in front of the OP No.1 and the authorized engineer of the OP 2. There after the staff of OP2 repaired the system. But it was for temporary sake. The complainant demanded for the replacement. The demand was written in the service report itself. But there after the staff of either of the OP didn’t come. The complaint occurred during warranty period. Repeated demands did not work out. So the system became idle. Consequently, the complainant was constrained to install a new system. There is clear deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice.
1st OP’s contention is that this OP had supplied an isolation transformer to the complainant along with battery as an added support. The transformer was only an optional part for the running of the UPS. But the transformer couldn’t support the UPS. The service engineer of OP No.2 had convinced that the UPS can be run effectively without the help of the transformer and connected the same, but during the installation process the system was over-loaded and the system break down. Further submitted that, the OP’s field service report dated 23/11/2019 clearly mentions that “replaced power card and control card and inter face board” which clearly shows that the UPS was not up to the quality as it should be. Sensing that the product delivered and installed by the OP No.2 was of sub-standard quality. Further contended that the OP had delivered 34 Exide batteries which are still operating in te premise of the complainant supporting the new UPS the complainant had purchased. As such it is evident that it was only due to the defect of the UPS supplied by the OP No.2 all the issues erupted, and not due to the defect of transformer. This OP is just a re-seller of all these electronic equipments and Batteries. The manufacture of UPS is opposite party No.2. So OP No.1 had not done any deficiency of service pertinent to the complaint lodged by the complainant herein.
On the other hand OP No.2 submitted that after break down the 2nd OP had insisted for a DOA replacement, but on verification of the service team, they advised the customer/ complainant to go with external charger, as the UPS is with 6.7 AMP charger default, and he used 150 AH and the requirement of the system was 15A charger. Battery warranty is not a part of 2nd OP’s responsibility. In the field service report dated 23/11/2019, the complainant wrote “Now UPS working. But I need full replacement”. This would show that the complainant’s only intention was to get full replacement, irrespective of the whether the products supplied were working. The 2nd OP submits that, in the month of January 2020, as DOA (Defective on Arrival) was not approved, the service team had replaced the spares with the required spares and the UPS was working well.
From the documents available before us, Ext.A1 and A2 shows that both tax invoice were issued by OP No.1 to the complainant, which means complainant had purchased the product from OP No.1. There is no dispute that OP NO.2 is the manufacturer of UPS purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 There is also no dispute that Exide EL 150 AH tubular Battery was supplied by OP No.1. It is also a fact that on 18/11/2019, sales engineer of the 1st OP and service engineer of 2nd OP came to the complainant’s house and installed the product. But within minutes the UPS ceased functioning
From the e-mail communications, it is evident that from Ext.B10 series. At the time of installation UPS got blasted and it was totally damaged, at same time Sibi found one more issue in the UPS that it had only 5 AMP charging card instead of 15 AMP charging card. So these are the issues found so requested product full replacement. When discussed this issue with them, Mr.Renjith agreed to that the product will be completely replaced with 15AMP charging card later, but at that time they temporarily fixed the issued (it was taken around 3 days to fix temporarily. Trusted his words and later he defended and cheated on product replacement. Unfortunately UPS had a breakdown (on May 18th 2020) within 6 months after the installation. OP Advice to contact CEEBIT Technologies for further assistance. But when enquired about this incidence got the information CEEBIT Technologies are only a product seller, they are not authorized to service Eaton UPS.
So it is evident that there was irresponsive customer service from the side of OPs. OP NO.2 submitted that there is financial issues between OP No.2 and their partner signo solutions, Complainant is not a party in this issue. Complainant had paid the entire prize of the product to OP O.1. Here we can see that OPs blame each other for the non-functioning caused t the product within a few months of its installation. Though on Ext.B1, it is seen that in three times o OP NO.1 tried t rectify the defect and complainant reported that the UPS was working, Ext.B10 series clears that on May 18 the 2020 within 6 months after installation, UPS had a break down. According to OP No.2, the UPS met a complaint is due to this poor transformer. OP No.1 alleged that the defect happened was due to charging card installed in the UPS ie instead of 15 AMP charging card, the UPS supplied by OP No.2 had only 5AMP charging card.
Here as far as complainant is concernt, the product became defective non-functioning within the short period of installation either due to complaint of UPS or due to transformer. It is also a fact that the product became break down within the warranty period. As a manufacture of UPS, OP No.2 cannot be evaded from its liability as they received complaint from the complainant about the non functioning of their product,, no steps were done to redress the grievance with regard to OP NO.1, complainant paid the entire amount to OP NO.1 and OP NO.1 had delivered, UPS, batteries and other allied instruments. Here the privity of contract is between complainant and OP No.1. Hence OP No.1 also cannot wash off their hand after delivering defective product to his customer.
Considering overall evidence and fact of this case both OPs are held liable.
In the result complaint is allowed in part. Opposite party No.1 and 2 are direct to refund an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to the complainant after taking back the defective products they supplied. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and monetary loss happened to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings of their complaint. Opposite parties 1and 2 are jointly and severally liable to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Failing which Rs.7,50,000+ Rs.1,00,000 will carry interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of order till realization. Complainant can execute the order.
Exts.
A1- Power of Attorney
A2-Tax invoice dated 27/07/2019
A3-Tax invoice dated 06/08/2019
B1- Service report
B2- Copy of e-mail from the complainant to OP 2
B3- Copy of e-mail from the complainant to OP 2
B4- Tax invoice dated 06/08/2019
B5- Tax invoice dated 27/08/2019
B6- Bill copy of M/s HCL infrasystem to APT computer zone
B7- Bill copy from APT computer zone to signo solution dated 06/08/2019
B8- Mail communication dated 23/07/2020
B9- Mail communication dated 21/06/2020
B10(series)- Mail communication dated 21/11/2020
B11- Mail communication
B12- Authorization letter
Pw1- Jagadeesh P P-Witness of complainant
Dw1-OP1
Dw2-OP2
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forwarded by order/
Assistant Registrar
