Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/28/2015

M.J.Manohar, S/o.Late Jayaram, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor/Manager, A-5 Batteries Sales & Service Centre, - Opp.Party(s)

R.P.Panner selvam

22 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  04.02.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.06.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 22^nd    DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

C.C.NO.28/2015

 

 

M.J.Manohar,

S/o. Late. Jayaram,

No.25, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,

Cross Street,  (Near South Mada Street),

Villivakkam, Chennai – 600 049.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

The Proprietor/Manager,

A-5, Batteries Sales & Service Centre,

New No.219, 292/12, Kilpauk Garden Road,

Opp.Cemetary, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.

 

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 05.02.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.R.P.Panneer Selvam

Counsel for    Opposite Party                   : M/s. Ramani.K & Natarajan.T

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to replace the defective battery or refund the cost of the battery of Rs.1,250/- and also to pay compensation for Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

           The Complainant visited the opposite party sales and service centre on 23.03.2014 and purchased a AMARON BATTERY bearing serial number Baboo  No.2100337365 for use of his own Motor Cycle Yamaha G5, having Registration No.TN-02-AJ-7178, from the opposite party for a valid consideration of Rs.1250/- on 20.03.2014. At the time of above purchase the opposite party assured two years warranty for battery. The complainant handed over the defective battery to the opposite party’s sale and service centre on 12.05.2014 and requested the opposite party to replace the defective battery with a new battery as assured by the opposite party at the time of purchase and within a short span of two months the battery was not working properly. The opposite party refused to replace the defective battery with new one and advised to handover the defective battery and warranty card to the Power Tech Company. The complainant handed over the defective battery and warranty card to the power Tech company and got receipt, on 16.05.2014 from the Power Tech Company. The above company authorities advised and assured the complainant to collect the new battery after 10 days from the opposite parties sales and service centre.        

          2. The Motor Cycle is very essential for day to day work for him, hence the Complainant purchased a new battery and fixed in his Motor Cycle. The new battery is working properly. The Power Tech Company did not come forward to replace the defective battery with new battery. The above negligent acts of the opposite party and his agent Power Tech Company put the complainant into severe mental agony. The complainant sent a notice on 24.12.2014 to the opposite party and Power Tech stating all the aforesaid facts and to replace the defective battery with new one. On receipt of the notices both parties neither replied nor complied the request made in the notice. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to replace the defective battery or refund the cost of the battery of Rs.1,250/- and also to pay compensation for Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony with cost of the complaint.       

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          This complaint is not maintainable against this opposite party since the principal is known to the complainant and that the entire complaint is only based against the manufacturer of the battery, viz. M/s Amaron Batteries, Chennai, who had issued the warranty to the complainant upon purchase of the battery. This opposite party is a sub-dealer and the subject battery was supplied to this opposite party by M/s. Murugan Battery, Perambur, Chennai-11, who is the dealer of the battery. The complainant approached this opposite party, he promptly attended to the complaint and tested the battery, only to find that the vehicle of the complainant, where the battery was fitted, had to be serviced since the charging was not adequate. This opposite party informed the complainant as to the same and if he requires verification, he was advised to take the battery to the Manufacturer’s Service Center, namely M/s. Power Tech, at No.857, T.H.Road, Washermenpet, Chennai-21. The complainant had taken the Battery for inspection to M/s. Power Tech, authorized service centre of the manufacturer, who had tested the battery and opined that there was defect in the vehicle only. Therefore this opposite party had acted diligently and promptly as expected of any sub-dealer and there was no deficiency in service at his end. The Complainant was issued with a warranty by the manufacturer and his remedy can be only against the manufacturer disclosed in the certificate of warranty. The complaint is frivolous and made with malafide grounds against this opposite party and prays to dismiss the same with costs.

4. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

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

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

5. POINT NO :1 

          It is not in dispute that the Complainant  purchased a Amaron Battery bearing serial number Baboo No.2100337365 for the use in his own Motor Cycle for a valid sale consideration of Rs.1,250/- on 20.03.2014 under Ex.A1 and the said battery also has warranty and within 2 months of purchase, the battery was not working and the complainant approached the opposite party and he in turn directed the complainant to approach the M/s Power Tech, who is the manufactures service centre and the complainant also handed over the battery under Ex.A3 to the Power Tech Company, however the battery was not replaced and hence the complainant issued Ex.A4 notice and the same was acknowledged by the opposite party under Ex.A5 acknowledgement and opposite party failed to give any reply to the complainant.

          6. According to the Complainant he purchased an Amaron Battery from the opposite party and since the battery became defective, the opposite party only has to replace it and the opposite party failed to replace the battery had committed deficiency in service.

          7. According to the opposite party he is only a Sub-dealer  who sold the battery to the complainant and the subject matter of battery was supplied to him by M/s. Murugan Battery, who is the dealer of the battery and when complainant approached him, the opposite party directed the complainant to approach the manufacture’s customer care M/s Power Tech, authorized service centre and the complainant also approached him and therefore not adding the necessary parties like customer care M/s Power Tech, the Manufacturer of M/S Amaron Batteries who are the right persons to reply to the complainant and hence the opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

          8. The complainant has not disputed that M/s Amaron Battery is the manufacturer and M/s Power Tech is the authorized service centre for the battery purchased by him and this opposite party is only a sub dealer. Admittedly the battery purchased by the complainant is having warranty. The complainant also gave the battery to the M/s Power Tech/service centre who issued Ex.A3 receipt for the receipt of the battery. It is the service centre who has to contact the manufacturer and do the needful to the customer/complainant. However, the said service centre has not done anything to the complainant. The opposite party specifically pleaded in his written version that M/s Murugan Battery, who is a dealer only supplied to him. M/s Power Tech is the service centre and M/s Amaron Battery is the manufacturer and they are the necessary parties. This fact was not disputed by the complainant in his proof affidavit which was filed, subsequent to the filing of the written version. Therefore, the above said manufacturer, service centre and dealer are the necessary parties to decide the dispute raised by the Complainant in this complaint. This Opposite Party is only a sub dealer and he cannot be held liable for the battery became defective. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has not proved the deficiency committed by the opposite party and hence, it is held that the opposite party has not committed any deficiency and service.    

09. POINT NO:2

          Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd day of June 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 20.03.2014                   Cash Bill No.2336 issued by the opposite party

Ex.A2 dated 12.05.2014                   Customer’s return note issued by the opposite

                                                   Party

 

Ex.A3 dated 16.05.2014                   Goods out words slip No.9 issued by the opposite

                                                   Party’s agent the Power Tech Company

 

Ex.A4 dated 24.12.2014                   Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite 

                                                   Party his agent with postal receipt

 

Ex.A5 dated 26.12.2014                   Acknowledgement cards

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 18.03.2014                   Murugan  Battery Sales & service

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT