Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

29/2014

J.Ganapathy,S/o.S.Jaynathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

VENUS Agencies,the proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.R.Sadagopalu

19 Sep 2023

ORDER

Complaint presented on :14.02.2014

 Date of disposal            :19.09.2023

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

                PRESENT : THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,                          :PRESIDENT

                                      TMT. KAVITHA KANNAN, M.E.,                         : MEMBER-I

                                      THIRU.V.RAMAMURTHY,B.A.,B.L.,PGDLA.,   :MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.29/2014

 

DATED TUESDAY THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

J.Ganapathy,

Son of V.Jaganathan,

Residing at No.25/2, 4^th street,

Thiyagi Sathiyamoorthy Nagar,

Manali Express Road,

Thiruvottriyur, Chennai-600 019.

                                                                          …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

Vens Agencies,

The Proprietor,

Total solution for Electrical,

Electronics & Computers,

New No.179-A,

Old No.74, M.S.Koil Street,

Royapuram,

Chennai-600 013.                                                                                    

                                                                                                …..Opposite Party.

 

Counsel for Complainant                        : M/s.R.Sadagopan & R.Selvapandian

Counsel for opposite party                        : M/s.S.Saravanakumar.

 

 

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. G. VINOBHA, M.A., B.L.,     :PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to direct the opposite party to refund the cost of the Inverter along with Battery Rs.15000/- along with 18% interest and to pay a sum of Rs.50000/- towards the physical strain and mental agony suffered by the complainant and his family members and awarding Rs.5000/- towards costs. (This complaint was originally decided exparte on 27.08.2014 against which the opposite party preferred F.A.No.132/2019 and as per order dated 31.10.2022 the matter was remanded to this commission for fresh disposal according to law).

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainants submits that he had purchased HIS (VENS) 600V.A Home INVERTER along with BATTERY (Power Zone Battery) from the opposite party on 20-10-2012 for sum of Rs.15,000/- paid in cash vide the opposite party cash invoice No.830 dt.20-10-2012. The Complainant states that said Inverter Battery has warrantee free service for period of one and half year from the date of purchase. The Complainant states that there was acute power cut during this recent period, the complainant was totally depend upon the inverter for overcome the problem of power cut. The complainant states that from very beginning, there was problem with the battery and most of time, there was hangover of the system and the complainant used to switch off the entire machine and thereafter restart it again. Therefore, the complainant immediately called upon the opposite party and subsequently one service engineer attend the fault. He did carry out some preliminary servicing work and the battery started working. The complainant noted that the battery back up lasted only for about 30 minutes or below after power cut. The Complainant states that after some times again the same problem found in the battery. The complainant again called upon the opposite party to sort out the fault found in the inverter battery and a service man from customer care visited the complainant's home to attend the fault for second time. He could not rectify the defect permanently. The complainant handed over the defective battery to the opposite party for rectification the fault on 25-03-2013 the service memo No.548, dated 25-03-2013. The Complainant states that 3 months passed since no effort was made by the opposite party to rectify the defects. Therefore the complainant requested the opposite party to replace the inverter battery. The complainant approached the opposite party for more than 30 times, it was not repaired nor replaced by the opposite party. Till date the Complainant is suffering due to non-availability of the inverter battery. The Complainant states that the opposite party under obligation to keep the inverter battery in perfect working condition for period of at least one year from the date of its purchase by the complainant which they have failed to do so. Serious manufacturing defects the said battery is a result of poor workmanship of the manufacturing for which the complainant have suffered loss and damages.. The Complainant states that he is an aged and sick person and recently an eye operation was done to him. To overcome problem of power cut in his vicinity, the complainant agreed to purchase the inverter from the opposite party. Bu the inverter battery found to be default from the beginning of purchase. The Complainant states that the opposite party has been grossly negligent and deficient in Service of repairing the said inverter battery and has thus caused loss, injury and damages in monetary terms and harassment and mental agony to the complainant. The opposite party had supplied defective good and he have to make good the losses suffered by the complainant. The Complainant states that he had sent a legal notice to the opposite party through his advocate on 20-06-2013. But it did not evoke any positive response from the opposite party side. Hence this complaint.

2.WRITTEN VERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The opposite parties denies all the allegations and averments made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted.  The complaint filed by the complainants was false, frivolous and vexatious and is as such liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the the complainant brought HIS (VENS) 600 V. A home INVERTER along with BATTERY (Power Zone battery) on 20.10.2012 for sum of Rs. 15,500.  The opposite party offered the discount of Rs.500 to the complainant for the purchase through Invoice no. 830. Complainant paid Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) in advance after that on 22.10.2012 he paid the balance amount Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only). on the time of delivery of the product I issue the Invoice Bill along with battery original Warranty card to the Complainant.  Further deny the allegation contained in para 7 of the petition, opposite party states that received the complaint from the complainant regarding the battery backup problem. The opposite party immediately send one service Engineer  to attend the fault. went to the complainant house and find out the Electric problem, Complainant was senior citizen so I engineer he states that the power fluctuation is improper in that area and also the to attend the fault. The Service infrastructure of the complainant house is not proper and the wire connections is not in good condition. I deny the allegation contained in para 8 of the petition, opposite party states that I received the further complaint from the complainant regarding the battery fault for poor maintenance. I send the Service man second time for the fault of the battery, he could not rectify the problem in the battery. The complainant handover the battery to me for rectification of the fault on 25.03.2013 the service memo no. 548, dated 25.03.2013. further deny the allegation contained in para 9,10,11,12 & 13 of the petition, opposite party consider the health issues of the complainant to replace the battery but the complainant failed to receive, the complainant have a intention to file a case in consumer forum and get the compensation for the battery fault for poor maintenance. Further submits that, VENS AGENCIES is the manufacturer of the inverter so vens agency is only responsible for the any fault in the INVERTER not for the BATTERY. The fault is only in the battery, Inverter is at the good condition.  The complainant have to approach the Andrapradesh, Tirupathi, Karakambedi, Renigunta Cuddapah Road, Amara Raja batteries Limited is responsible for any fault in the battery, but the complainant did not add the Amara Raja batteries Limited as a party to this case.  Further the warranty card its clearly states that all disputes or difference arising out of use of battery shall have exclusive jurisdiction of Thirupathi court Andra Pradesh. So the complainant not at all have the jurisdiction.  Further the complainant return the battery after 10 months from the purchase.  Point no.14 in the warranty card clearly states ‘The Service record on the warranty card must be filled regularly as a proof of maintenance failure to do so bill invalidate this warranty. The complainant failed to follow the condition which were mentioned in the warranty card until now complainant have the original warranty card.  Vens Agency is not liable for anyway in the fault of the batter. The complainant approach this forum for seeking remedies in apparently no maintainable.  There was no negligence on the part of the Opposite Party.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

 

 

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed in the

    complaint.  If, so to what extent?

 

The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to A5 are marked on their side and written arguments.  The  opposite party have filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked on his side.

4. POINT NO :1:-

          The contention of the complainant is that he had purchased the inverter battery from the opposite party on 20.10.2012 and from the date of purchase onwards, the battery was not working properly and the opposite party service engineer attended the fault two times and even after that the defect in the battery continues and the complainant handedover the battery on 25.03.2012 to the opposite party for rectification and the opposite party failed to rectify the defect.  Ex.A1 is the copy of the cash bill dated 20.10.2012 issued by the opposite party for Rs.15000/- Ex.A2 is the copy of the warranty card.  Ex.A3 is the service memo/delivery challan dated 25.03.2012.  Ex.A4 is the legal notice dated 20.06.2013 issued by the complainant to opposite party.  Ex.A5 is the postal acknowledgement.

          It is alleged by the opposite party in the written version that a complaint was received regarding battery backup problem and immediately once service engineer was deputed to attend the fault and according to him the power fluctuation in that area and also the infrastructure of the complainant house and wire connection was not in good condition and a further complaint was received and a service man was sent to attend the fault for the 2^nd time but he could not rectify the problem in the battery and hence the battery was handedover to the opposite party on 25.03.2013 for rectification but the complainant failed to receive the same and further contended that the inverter was in good condition but the problem occurred only in the battery which was manufactured by Amara Raja Batteries Limited which was not impleaded as a party and further stated that as per the terms in the warranty card all the dispute in respect of battery will lie within the jurisdiction of Tirupathi Court Andhrapradesh and denied deficiency in service.

          It is found from Ex.A1 and A2 that the complainant has purchased inverter along with batteries from the opposite party on 20.10.2012 for a sum of Rs.15000/- and as per the terms and condition no.8 in Ex.A2 in the event in the defect of the battery during the warranty period the opposite party has to replace the battery free of cost and admittedly as per Ex.A3 the fault in the inverter with battery arose on 25.03.2013 which is within the warranty period of 18 months as found in Ex.A2 the opposite party is liable to rectify the defect in the inverter as well as in the battery and it is found from Ex.A4 that inspite of legal notice issued by the complainant the opposite party has failed to rectify the defect in the inverter and battery even after the alleged visit of the service engineer on two occasions which will go to show that the opposite party had sold a defective product to the complainant since the warranty card covers battery also it is not open to the opposite party to allege that the petition is bad for non joinder of Amara Raja Battery limited as a party to the complaint and further there is no force in the contention of the opposite party that the dispute arising out of use of the battery shall have exclusive jurisdiction of Tirupathi Court Andhrapradesh.  Though the opposite party in the written version contended that there was power fluctuation in the complainant’s area  and also the wiring connection and infrastructure of the complainant house was not proper the same is not proved by appropriate evidence .  On the other hand the inverter with battery which was handedover for rectification on 25.03.2013 is still with the opposite party without rectifying the fault in the inverter which occurred during the warranty period and hence it is found that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

5. Point no.2:-

          Based on findings in Point No.1.  Since there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party in not rectifying the defect in the inverter and battery and not replacing the same during the warranty period and since the inverter with battery was handedover to the opposite party on 25.03.2013 considering the lapse of time and also the facts of the complaint it is found that the opposite party is liable to refund the cost of the product of Rs.15000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from 25.03.2013 till date of payment and also liable to pay Rs.20000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also entitled to Rs.3000/- towards cost of the complaint.

          In the result the Complaint is partly allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs.15000/- towards the cost of the product with interest at 6% p.a. from 25.03.2013 till date of payment and also pay Rs.20000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also to pay Rs.3,000/- towards cost of this complaint.  The above amount shall be paid to the Complainant within two months of the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order to till the date of payment.

Dictated by the President to the Steno-Typist taken down, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 19^th day of September 2023.

 

MEMBER – I               MEMBER – II                                   PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1	20.10.2012	Cash bill/invoice no.830
Ex.A2		Warranty card for inverter battery.
Ex.A3	25.03.2013	Service memo.
Ex.A4	20.06.2013	Advocate notice.
Ex.A5		Acknowledgement card.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY:

NIL

 

MEMBER  I               MEMBER  II                                   PRESIDENT