By Jayasree Kallat, Member:
The petition was filed on 7-12-2010. Complainant purchased a Motor Cycle from the first opposite party on 7-5-2010. Vehicle was taken for free service to the first opposite party on three occasions, 31-5-2010, 9-8-2010 and 30-10-2010. On 30-102-2010 when the vehicle was taken to the first opposite party for free service, the first opposite party had informed the complainant that the battery of the vehicle was weak. The battery carries a warranty for 18 months from date of sale of vehicle or 20000 kilometers or 21 months from the date of manufacturing. As per the direction of the first opposite party, vehicle was taken to the second opposite party. Second opposite party had taken the battery from the vehicle and gave claim receipt note to the complainant. Complainant had repeatedly approached the second opposite party for the battery. But he did not get the battery either serviced or replaced by a new one. The battery was given to the second opposite party on 1-11-2010 for repair. Till the date of filing the petition opposite party has not taken any action to return back the battery to the complainant. The complainant is alleging negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this petition is filed seeking relief along with compensation.
Opposite party-1 filed version denying the averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. Opposite party-1 admits the facts that complainant had purchased the vehicle from opposite party-1. The battery is manufactured by opposite party-2. Opposite party-1 had instructed the complainant to take the battery to opposite party-2 to get it serviced. The warranty for the battery is given by the manufacturer. Opposite party-2 is the authorized party to repair the battery or to replace. Therefore was no negligence or deficiency on the part of opposite party-1. The complainant is not entitled for any relief from opposite party-1. Hence opposite party-1 is prays to dismiss the petition against opposite party-1.
Opposite party-2 did not appear before the Forum or file any version even after receiving the notice. Hence opposite party-2 was called absent and set exparte.
The only point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for any relief.
Complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on compla8inant’s aide. No oral or documentary evidence from the side of the opposite parties.
The case of the complainant is that he purchased a Two Wheeler Hero Honda Passion Pro from the first opposite party. Opposite party-2 is the Authorised Service Centre of the Battery for which the complainant alleges defect. According to the complainant on the 3rd free service of the vehicle itself the battery had become weak. Hence he had taken the vehicle to opposite party-2 as per the instruction of opposite party-1. The battery was handed over to the opposite party-2 for checking and repair. Ext.A7 produced by the complainant is the claim receipt note dated 27-1-2011 which shows that the battery was received by opposite party-2. The definite case of the complainant is that the battery was found to be weak by opposite party-1 within the warranty period. Ext.A1 is clear proof to show that the battery was found to be defective within warranty period. Hence it was sent to opposite party-2 for inspection and favourable action. Opposite party-1 had requested to replace the battery under warranty as per Ext.A1 as early as 1-11-2010. Opposite party-2 has not responded to the request of the complainant. The complainant had repeatedly requested to the dealer and the service centre to get the battery. But has not received the battery. According to the complainant due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties he could not ply the vehicle. He had suffered financially and mentally due to the deficient act of the opposite parties. On a perusal of the documents Ext.A6 battery warranty card pertaining to the vehicle belonging to the complainant, it is revealed that the battery carries warranty for 18 months from date of sale of vehicle or 20000 kilometers or 21 months from the date of manufacturing whichever is earlier. According to the complainant vehicle was purchased on 7-5-2010 and the last free service for the vehicle was done on 30-10-2010. From 30-10-2010itself the battery became weak. It is the responsibility of opposite party-2 to replace the battery as there was a warranty for the same. Opposite party-2 has not complied the warranty conditions. Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for relief.
In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite party-2 is directed to replace the defective battery of the complainant’s vehicle and also to issue a fresh warranty card. The complainant is also entitled for a compensation of Rs.1000/-. Opposite party-1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount to the complainant. Opposite parties are to comply the order within one month of receiving the copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open court this the 2nd day of February 2012.
Date of filing: 07.12.2010.
SD/-PRESIDENT SD/-MEMBER SD/-MEMBER
APPENDIX
Documents exhibited for the complainant:
A1.Photocopy of the battery was found to be defective within warranty period
dtd.01.11.2010.
A2. Photocopy of claim receipt note dtd.01.11.2010 of Exide Industries Ltd.
A3. Photocopy of postal receipt dtd.25.11.2010.
A4. Photocopy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party regarding the delay of
battery service.
A5. Reply letter to the complainant dtd.26.11.2010.
A6. Photocopy of battery warranty card of Hero Honda Motors Ltd. dtd.07.05.2010.
Documents exhibited for the opposite party:
Nil
Witness examined for the complainant:
PW1.Siddique.O (Complainant)
Witness examined for the opposite party:
None.
Sd/-President
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
