Rajeev Garg,

No.47, 9th Cross,

Sulthan Palya,

Vinayak Layout,

Opp Chithra Bakery,

R.T.Nagar,

Bangalore – 560 032.

…. Complainant.

V/s



01. M/s APC

No.27, Lavelle Road,

Bangalore – 560 001.

Represented by its Manager,



02. M/s CEIBA SYSTEMS,

No.A51, 2nd Main, 31st A Cross,

Jayanagar, 7th Block,

Bangalore – 560 082

Represented by its Manager.



…. Opposite Party

-:ORDER:-





This complaint is for a direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.63,500/- with interest at 18% Per Annum on the following grounds:-

On 09/03/2008 the complainant purchased APC lighting UPS consisting of lighting UPS 120 AH and Battery serial No.1e73967 Trolley from Opposite Party No.2 – who is the Authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.13,500/-. UPS was provided with warranty for two years and the battery was provided with warranty for 18 months. Some time after purchase of the above material, there was a defect in the system. In response to the complaint given on 20/02/2009 a representative of the Opposite Party visited on 22/02/2009 and found that there was problem in voltage and suggested to change the Battery. Accordingly the representative of Opposite Party changed the Battery on 09/03/2003. But the same problem persisted and therefore the complainant gave another complaint on 10/03/2009.

The representative of the Opposite Party visited on 24/03/2009 and found that there was problem in voltage dropping and back up is less and assured that some one will be sent to repair, but thereafter the Opposite Party denied the liability and trying to ignore the genuine complaint. The UPS and Battery was purchased for the purpose of examination of the children, but the system stopped functioning at the time of examination and therefore the purpose was not served. The system is lying as waste due to the negligence of the Opposite Party and their staff. He sent legal notice dated 21/4/2009 calling upon the Opposite Party to refund the sum of Rs.13,500/- paid for the system and also to pay Rs.50,000/- for the inconvenience caused. In spite of receipt of notice, the Opposite Parties neither gave reply nor complied with the demand. Hence, the complaint.



3. In spite of service of notice, Opposite Party No.2 – the Authorized Dealer of Opposite Party No.1 has remained absent. Opposite Party No.1 has resisted the claim on the following grounds:-

They manufacture inverters and UPS. The UPS or the inverters require batteries for storing power and releasing it when required. They do not manufacture Batteries and as such it has to pair matching batteries to ensure functioning of the inverter. From what is stated in the complaint it is clear that the Opposite Party has been rendering good service and has been attending on the problems as and when reported. The Battery was replaced on one occasion. However on checking up the unit, it was found that the inverter is in good condition and is working fine. Opposite Party No.1 is ready and willing to replace the Battery or in the alternative to pay the costs of the Battery and it cannot be held liable for the inverter unit which is in good working condition.

4. In support of the respective contentions both parties have filed affidavits. We have heard the arguments on both side.



5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our finding are:-

Point No(i) : In the Affirmative

Point No(ii) : As per final order,

for the following:-



-:REASONS:-

7. The fact that the complainant has purchased UPS and Battery from Opposite Party No.2 on 09/03/2008 and that the Unit namely the UPS is manufactured by the Opposite Party No.1 is not disputed. It is also admitted that on 09/03/2009 almost one year after the purchase of the Unit, the Battery was replaced. The sole grievance of the complainant is with regard to the Battery back-up and there is no complaint with regard to the working of the UPS or the inverter. It is not the case of the complainant that there are any manufacturing defects in the UPS or the inverter. The grievance of the complainant is that though the battery was replaced on 09/03/2009, the same problem cropped-up and therefore on the very next day namely on 10/03/2009 he gave another complaint and on 24/03/2009 the representative of the Opposite Party found that there was problem in voltage dropping and back-up and assured to send some one to repair, but till the date of complaint nothing is done.

Alleging inaction the complaint is filed on 23/05/2009 about two months after the visit of the representative of the Opposite Party on 24/03/2009. From what is stated in the version, it is clear that Opposite Party No.1 is aware of the defect in the Battery and therefore has undertaken to replace the Battery or to pay its price. Opposite Party No.2 has also filed a memo on 28/08/2009 undertaking to replace the battery within two weeks. However, the complainant did not accept the offer made by Opposite Party No.1. Admittedly the complainant has used the unit for more than one year as on the date of complaint. The problem is only with working of the Battery and not in the UPS or in the inverter. If the problem can be resolved by replacing the battery, the complainant cannot seek refund of the price of the unit after making use of the same for more than one year. Therefore, in our opinion it is just and proper to direct Opposite Party No.1 to replace the Battery and to set-right all the problems in the Unit.

The contention of the complainant that from 24/03/2009 till the date of complaint, nobody turned-up to rectify the defects has remained unchallenged. Therefore there appear some truth in the contention of the complainant that in spite of the promise made on 24/03/2009, the Opposite Party No.1 never turned-up to set-right the defects by replacing the battery and therefore the complainant was compelled to file the complaint. In these circumstances, in our opinion, it is just and proper to impose costs on Opposite Party No.1 In the result, we pass the following:-

-:ORDER:-



1. The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to replace the battery in the Unit supplied to the complainant and attend to all the defects therein and shall pay costs of Rs.1,000/-.

2. Compliance of this order shall be made within four weeks from the date of communication.