COMPLAINANT :- Dr. Vijayanand Dharwar,
Age: 46 years, Occ: Medical Practitioner,
R/o. Vikram Sarai, New Vegetable Market,
GULBARGA.

(By Sri A.S. Chinde Advocate)



// Versus //


OPPONENTS: - 1) Su-Kam Power Solutions,
Through its Service Engineer,
449, Ground Floor, 6th Main,
7th Cross, Mico Layout,
BTM II Stage
BANGALORE.


2) Varalaxmi Technologist,
Through its Proprietor,
Santosh Bharadi, Shop No.C-12,
Cellar, Asian Plaza,
Timmapuri Chowk,
GULBARGA.


: : O R D E R : :

1. This complaint is filed by one Dr. Vijayanand Dharwar R/o. New Vegetable Market, Gulbarga against the OP-1 & 2, U/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, praying that, direction may be given to OPs to replace the defective battery. Further direction may be given to OPs to pay Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the proceedings in the interest of justice.



2. The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as under;
Complainant is doctor, who after completing MBBS for his livelihood he started a clinic at Vikram Sarai, new vegetable market Gulbarga. He was in need of inverter for his clinic. OP-1 is manufacturer of Su-Kam inverter and OP-2 is authorized dealer for the said product.

He purchased 800V.A. Chic Inverter, 190 AH Battery and Trolley from OP-2 on 11-9-2006 and OPs gave warranty for a period of 2 years. Complainant has paid Rs.16,450/- to OP-2 for purchase of said inverter, OP-2 has issued tax invoice and installed said inverter in his clinic. The battery installed by OPs started to give trouble in the month of May-2008. Therefore he complained about trouble of battery to OPs and requested them to repair defective battery. They repaired defective battery by charging Rs.200/-. Again battery develops problems in the first week of July 2008. Complainant requested OPs to replace the defective battery with new one. OPs replaced new battery by charging Rs.5000/- on 16-7-2008. OPs replaced said battery within warranty period, hence Complainant is not liable to pay Rs.5000/- to the OPs., same was intimated to OP-1, but he act negligently. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that, complaint may be allowed and direction may be given to OPs to replace the defective battery and pay compensation as prayed in the complaint.

3. After registering the case, notices were issued to OPs. After serving the notice, O.P-1, did not appear, it is held that service is sufficient and he was placed exparte. OP-2 appeared through Counsel and filed written statement contending that, Para-3 of the complaint, it is submitted that,OP-1 is manufacturer of Su-Kum Inverters. It is also true that, OP-2 is authorized dealer at Gulbarga for said inverters. It is true that, Complainant has purchased 800V.A. Chic Inverter and 190 AH Battery and Trolley from OP-2 on 11-9-2006 and OPs.

It is false that, warranty period is 2 years. It is true that, Complainant has paid Rs.16,450/- to OP-2 for purchase of said inverter. It is submitted that, warranty period is only 18 months. It is false that, battery started to give trouble in the month of May 2008. It is true that Complainant requested to OPs to replace the same, but on the date of issuing of battery, warranty period was completed, hence OPs denied to replace the defective battery. Hence battery was repaired by charging Rs.200/-. It is further true that, in the first week of July 2008, battery started to give trouble. Complainant requested to replace the new battery on payment Rs.5000/-on deducting the value of old battery. But OP-2 is unable to replace the new

battery on completion of warranty period, therefore, he charged Rs.5000/- for replacement of new battery. It is false to say that, Complainant is not liable for the same. Complainant has admitted in his letter dated 16-7-2008 that, warranty period is only 18 months. It is false that, Complainant has suffered mental agony due to non-replacement of battery. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that, complaint may be dismissed with cost.


4. To prove claim of complainant, himself filed affidavit by way of evidence, he examined as PW-1, documents marked as Exh.P-1 to Ex.P-6. OP-2 filed affidavit by way of cross of PW-1, Complainant side evidence closed. OP- 2 also filed affidavit by way of evidence, who examined as RW-1, he has not filed any document in support of his claim, accordingly documents not marked in support of his case. Complainant also filed affidavit by way of cross of RW-.1, OPs side evidence closed.


5. Heard the arguments from both sides.

6. The points that arises for our consideration are;
(1) Whether there is a deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps?

(2) What Order?

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:-
(1) Yes.

(2) As per final order for the following;




: : R E A S O N S : :


8. Point No:1 :
We have carefully perused the affidavit, documents. Complainant’s case is that, he has purchased 800V.A. Chic Inverter and 190 AH Battery and Trolley from OP-2 on 11-9-2006. OPs gave warranty for a period of 2 years. Complainant has paid Rs.16,450/- for purchasing said inverter, OP-2 has issued tax invoice and installed said inverter in the clinic of Complainant. The battery installed by OPs started to giving trouble in the month of May-2008. Accordingly he complained about trouble of battery to OPs and requested them to repair defective battery. OP-2 repaired defective battery by charging Rs.200/-.

Again battery develops problems in the first week of July 2008. Further again Complainant requested OPs to replace defective battery with new one. OPs replaced new battery by charging Rs.5000/- on 16-7-2008. Accordingly, OPs replaced said battery, by receiving Rs.5000/- within warranty period. Complainant is not liable to pay Rs.5000/- to the OPs., same was intimated to OP-1, but he never cared to the request of Complainant and completely he act negligently. During the course of evidence, he was examined as PW-1, documents marked, Ex.P.1 is copy of tax invoice. Ex.P.2 is copy of customer’s information. Ex.P.3 is copy of warranty card. Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.5 are bills. Ex.P.6 is copy of letter. On the other hand OP-2 also filed affidavit by way of evidence, he examined


as RW-1, but no documents marked, since he has not filed any document in support of his case. Further on going through evidence of OP-2, almost all the facts averred in the complaint and deposed in the evidence of Complainant are admitted. He also admitted that, Complainant has purchased 800V.A. Chic Inverter and 190 AH Battery and Trolley from OP-2 on 11-9-2006. OPs gave warranty for a period of two years, accordingly Complainant has paid Rs.16,450/- to OP-2 for purchasing said inverter, he issued tax invoice and installed said inverter in Complainant’s clinic.

In this case, though notice served upon OP-1, he remained absent, hence he was placed exparte. On careful perusal of written statement and evidence of OP-2, he admitted almost all averments of complaint, except he taken contention that, warranty period of battery was expired at the time of replacement of new battery, accordingly he charged Rs.5,000/- for replacing new battery. On careful going through Ex.P.3, i.e. warranty card, which clearly mentioned that, warranty period for the said battery is two years and warranty starts from 11-9-2006 i.e., from date of purchase and it expires on 11-9-2008. OPs have replaced battery on 16-7-2008, within warranty period, by receiving Rs.5000/-. Even they repaired battery within warranty period by charging Rs.200/-, which is wrong. Therefore on careful going through the evidence and documents in our considered opinion there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs. If we direct OPs to replace new battery it will meets ends of justice, accordingly we answered this point in affirmative.


9. Point No.2:-
In view of the discussions made on point No.1, we also answered this point in affirmative. Hence we proceed to pass the following;


: : O R D E R : :

Complaint is allowed. OP-1 & 2 are directed to replace 190 AH Battery. Further OP-1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and costs of the proceedings jointly and severally. Further O.P-1 & 2 are directed to comply this order within one month from the date of this order jointly and severally.