DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., PRESIDENT FAC
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER.
Wednesday, 08th January 2014
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 08/ 2013
B.N. Mahesh, S/o. Mallaiah,
Aged 42 Years, Hindu, Govt. Employee,
D.No. 8/1331, Saipet, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
The Proprietor/Authorized Dealer,
Siva Sankar Motors (BSA MOTORS),
D.No. 8/189 Beside of MDH Petrol Bunk,
Almaspet, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District. ….. Respondent.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 04-01-2014 in the presence of Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy, Advocate for complainant and Smt. S. Lalitha, Advocate for Respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per SMT. K. SIREESHA, PRESIDENT FAC),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The respondent is the owner of BSA motors (Siva sankar Motors) of electric bikes the complainant had purchased Electric Bike manufactured by the Velocity motors er in the year 2009 to void heavy petrol expenses. After 2 years the Battery was spoiled, in the May 2011, then the complainant purchased New Exide batteries (4 pieces) from the respondent and paid Rs. 10,300/- with six months validity. On dt. 23.06.2011 the said batteries were fully spoiled within the validity period i.e., November 2012.
3. The complainant informed to the respondent about the spoiled batteries, the respondent examined the batteries and informed that the problem occurred by the Charger, the charger is not functioning properly and the charger is supplying the power continuously after completion of charging. The perfect charger should cut-off the power after completion of charging of the batteries. Hence the batteries were spoiled and advised the complainant to change the charger immediately. Thus the complainant had purchased the charger from the respondent and paid Rs. 1300/- on dt. 07.03.2012 towards purchase of charger before issuing the new batteries.
4. After 4 months i.e, on dt. 23.03.2012 the respondent was replaced with old batteries and collected the amount of Rs. 500/- as labour charges for fixing the batteries and Transport charges. Again the said batteries were not functioning properly and the charging is going to discharge within 15k.m. Then the complainant approached the respondent and informed the above problem. The respondent was promised the complainant that the said batteries will be change after obtaining the permission from the company approval. The time is left out day by day, the respondent was not responding.
5. On dt. 06.07.2012 the respondent was informed, that he cannot change the spoiled batteries, as the company is not agree to change the said batteries and gave evasive reply to the complainant, the complainant informed a issue notice to respondent on dt. 10.07.2012 but they are not come forward and not response to the notice. Hence this complaint.
6. The complainant was very suffered and mental agony about the attitude of the respondent, the respondent was supplied perfect batteries in as such time the complainant never suffered and never loss. Hence the complainant purchased another second hand vehicle by payment of Rs. 35,000/- it is also causing of loss by purchasing of another vehicle on dt. 09.07.2012.
7. Hence the complainant further prayed that the Consumer Forum to be pleased to direct the respondent,
a) To issue of New Exide Batteries of 24 Ams./12V.
b) To pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards hiring of auto charges.
c) To pay a sum of the Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony expenditure and
loss of leave and time.
d) To pay a sum of Rs. 1500/- towards the cost of petition.
8. Counter filed on behalf of the Respondent. The petition filed by petitioner is neither just nor maintainable either in law or on facts of the case.
9. The petitioner is put to strict proof of all the allegations made in affidavit except those which are specifically admitted by this Respondent.
10. The averments made in petition that the petitioner has purchased New Exide Batteries (4 pieces) from this respondent for consideration of Rs. 10,300/- with six months warranty on dt. 23.06.2011 and the petitioner complained to the respondent that the said batteries were spoiled in the month of November, 2011 are true and correct. This respondent submits that he asked the petitioner to produce the said complained batteries and after the producing the same, he has send them to the local service mechanic i.e., Exide Industry Limited, Kadapa and after examining the same they gave a report stating that there is no mechanical defect in the batteries and the same were bulged due to improper handling (The copy of the report is filed herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Forum) of petitioner and as such the said problem will not be covered the warranty and then the Respondent sent the said batteries to the Manufacturer company i.e., Exide Industry Limited, Ambattur, Chennai and there also the company mechanics examined them and gave a report stating that the said batteries were spoiled due to “over charge and bulge” on account of improper handling and as such it will not covered the terms of warranty. (The copy of the report is filed herewith for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Forum) According to the reports of local service mechanic and the manufacturer company the petitioner is not entitled for replacement of batteries for the spoiled batteries, however this respondent requested the company to replace the same by considering it as his obligation and on that the said spoiled batteries were replaced with new batteries (4 pieces) on dt. 12.03.2012 at free of cost without any warranty.
11. The allegation made by petitioner that the said spoiled batteries were replaced
with old batteries and collected the amount of Rs. 500/- as labour and transport charges are an absolutely false. Though this respondent or manufacture company are not liable to replace the first batteries with new batteries as the same were spoiled not due to mechanical defect, but it occurred due to improper handling, but this respondent requested the company to replace the same as his obligation. Since the present batteries in question were given at free of cost without any warranty, the petitioner is not entitled for replacement of the same with the new batteries.
12. It is submitted this respondent is only dealer and he has sold the batteries at first instance with warranty of the company to the petitioner and the same were replaced by present batteries in question by the company on the request of the Respondent. The company has to rectify the mechanical defect if any in the earlier batteries or present batteries replace the same by another batteries provided if the company satisfy that there is any mechanical defect in the batteries, but not by this respondent and as such the company of Exide Industry Limited, Ambattur, Chennai is the necessary party to the proceedings of this case. Since the said necessary party is not implied it is not maintainable under the law on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. This respondent is only the dealer of the company and he sold the batteries with warranty issued by the company and as such the company will be held responsible for any mechanical defect or for any other reason which will cover the warranty but not this Respondent.
13. The allegation made in petition that this Respondent promised the petitioner that he will change the present batteries in question after obtaining the permission or approval from the company, but he postponed to do the same on day by day and the respondent did not respond are all also nothing but false.
14. This respondent submits that he had stopped the business and got his
dealership of Exide battery company was cancelled, even before the complaint made by petitioner about the present batteries in question and asked the petitioner to correspond with company and get redressal if any against the same by expressing that he closed the business is nothing concerned with the business of said company. Since this respondent sold the batteries at first instance to the petitioner and replaced the same with present batteries in question on moral obligation as dealer on behalf of the company, but now he is not liable to do the same as he is neither doing said business nor his dealership is in-force nor the complaint of petitioner covered the warranty. As stated above this respondent is not liable to pay any damages to the petitioner. The allegation that the petitioner issued a notice to respondent on dt. 10.07.2012 and did not respond the same is false. This respondent states that no notice was served to him prior to filing of this case. As stated above there are no merits in this petition, but it is filed by petitioner with a malafide intention to extract an unlawful amounts form this respondent by blackmail and harassing.
15. It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the
complaint with costs and to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental and physical
agony expenditure in the interest of justice.
16. Exhibits A1 to A5 marked on behalf of the complainant and Exhibits B1 to B3 marked on behalf of the respondents.
17. As from the above averments these points were taken for consideration:-
1) Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation as prayed by him or
not ?
2) Is there any negligence or deficiency of service on behalf of the respondent
or not ?
3) To what relief ?
18.Point No. 1 & 2:- It is very clear from Ex. A1 that the complainant had purchased Four Batteries from the respondent on dt. 23.06.2011 for Rs. 10,300/- with Six Months Validity. The said batteries spoiled in the month of November 2011 and the respondent had changed the damaged batteries with new batteries and advised the complainant to purchase the charger for proper charging of batteries. The complainant purchased a charger by paying Rs. 1300/- under Ex. A2. There is no proof to show that the complainant had paid Rs. 500/- towards labour charges for changing of spoiled batteries with new batteries. It is very clear from Ex. B1 that the battery container have physical damaged due to improper handling. Ex. B2 clearly shows that warranty is not accepted. The respondent sold the batteries at the first instance to the complainant and replaced the same with present batteries in question does not cover the warranty. The first purchased battery only covers the warranty period. It is very clear in Ex. B3 that the replaced battery does not cover the warranty. Ex. A4 is the notice issued to the respondent by the complainant dated 13.07.2012 and Ex. A5 also notice issued to the respondent by the complainant dt. 19.07.2012. Ex. A3 to Ex. A5 does not support the case of the complaint. As it is very clear from the Ex. B3 that the warranty does not continue for the replaced new batteries the complainant is not eligible for compensation as prayed by him. The above exhibits clearly proves that there is no negligence or deficiency of service or manufacturing defect on behalf of the respondent.
19. Point No. 3:- In the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 08th January 2014.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of Battery Purchase Receipt dt. 23.06.2011.
Ex. A2 P/c of Charger Receipt dt. 07.03.2012.
Ex. A3 P/c of Company Invoice Letter of Exide Industries Ltd., dt. 12.03.2012.
Ex. A4 Notice Issued to Respondent dt. 13.07.2012.
Ex. A5 2nd Notice Issued to Respondent dt. 27.09.2012.
Exhibits marked for Respondents : -
Ex. B1 The report copy of Exide Industries Ltd., Kadapa on dt. 19.12.2011.
Ex. B2 The report copy of Exide Industries Ltd., Ambattur, Chennai,
dt. 19.01.2012 (Service Centre Copy).
Ex. B3 Warrant Booklet of Exide Electrical Rechargeable E-Bike Battery.
MEMBER PRESIDENT FAC
Copy to :-
1) Sri Sri P.V. Ramana Reddy Advocate for complainant.
2) Smt. S. Lalitha, Advocate for Respondent.
P.P.R.
