C.C.No:65/2009
BETWEEN:
Dodda Haranadh Babu,

S/o Yedukondala Rao,

Aged about 27 years,

Martur village and Mandal,

Prakasam District. ... Complainant.

Vs.

Sri Lakshmi Auto Agencies,

North bye pass road,

Near Wood Complex,

Ongole. …Opposite party.
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT : SRI R. KESAVA RAO,

ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.


COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY : SRI M. SRIDHAR,

ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.


This complaint is coming on 06.01.2010 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this Forum delivered the following:

ORDER:
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party.



2. The averments in the complaint are as follows:- The opposite party is the dealer of Massey Fergusion 241 Tractor at Ongole on 19.03.2008 the complainant purchase Fergusion Tractor from the opposite party and took the tractor to Marturu village and has been using the same for ploughing lands in and around Marturu village. The battery of the tractor was not functioning properly and the complainant took the battery to the opposite party on 05.12.2008 and handed over the battery to the opposite party. On 20.12.2008 the same battery was delivered to the complainant the complainant took the battery to Marturu and fixed the same to the tractor and tried to start engine, but the engine was not started. The complainant went to the opposite party and informed about the defect in the battery to the opposite party but the opposite party did not give any reply. The warranty period for the battery is 12 months. Since the battery was not functioning properly within warranty period. The opposite party is liable to replace the battery with new one. Since the battery was not replace the tractor was kept idle and the complainant sustained heavy loss of Rs.1,00,000/- due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint.



3. The opposite party filed his counter contending as follows:- The opposite party is an authorized dealer for ‘TAFE AND MASSEY FERGUSON’ company. The tractor purchased by the complainant was manufactured by “Tafe and Massey Ferguson” company. The battery is manufactured by another company i.e., EXIDE INDUSTRIES LIMITED. Both companies are different and having separate legal entity under law. Therefore one company cannot be held responsible for the defects if any, committed by another company. The opposite party is not the authorized dealer for Exide Industries Limited the manufacturer of the tractor and the battery or necessary parties to the petition. But, they are not added as parties to the petition. As per warranty conditions battery should be service by authorized dealer of the battery manufacturer and in all claims, the manufacturer’s decision will be final and legally binding. The only task that can be done by the opposite party is to send the battery to the Exide Company if there are any defects in the battery for replacement. For the foregoing reasons the opposite party prays the forum to dismiss the complaint.



4. On behalf of the complainant Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. Ex.A1 is the Quotation dated 18.02.2008 to the Manager, P.D.C.C. Bank, Marturu. Ex.A2 is the Invoice to the complainant. Ex.A3 is the Battery warranty card.



5. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party.



6. Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed in the complaint?



7. It is not in dispute that the complainant purchased Massey Fergusion Tractor Bearing No. AP 27 AA 4912 from the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that within the warranty period the battery was not working properly and he handed over the battery to the opposite party on 05.12.2008 and the opposite party delivered the same battery on 20.12.2008. It is his further case that he took the battery and fixed the same to the tractor and tried to start engine, but the engine was not started due to manufacturing defect in the battery. Hence, he filed the complaint for replacement.



8. The opposite party contended that there is no defect in the battery and the complainant after running the vehicle on the same battery filed the present complaint when the warranty period was giving to an end with an intention to get new battery. Opposite party further contended that there is no expert opinion to show that there was defect in the battery and the opposite party is not liable to replace the battery.



9. I have perused the warranty terms and conditions for battery. As per warranty terms and conditions for battery warranty period for battery is 12 months. The terms and conditions further read that the right to determine whether or not battery needs the repair or replacement will rest with battery manufacturer. In the present case neither the manufacturer of the tractor nor the manufacturer of the battery are added as parties to the petition. No expert opinion is produced by the complainant. The battery was not sent to the battery manufacturer to know whether there is defect in the battery or not. Complainant says that after taking the battery to Marturu on 20.12.2008 the battery did not work. But he did not take the battery again to the complainant and complaint to him. In the absence of expert opinion that there is manufacturing defect in the battery no replacement can be ordered. In the circumstances of the case opposite party can be directed to recharge and service to battery free of costs and deliver the same to the complainant.



10. The complainant further contended that since 20.12.2008 the tractor was kept idle as the battery was not working and he sustained loss of Rs.1,00,000/- due to non replacement of the battery by the opposite party. But, there is no evidence to show that the battery was not working since 20.12.2008 and that the tractor was kept idle. Further, there is no sub contract in this case for reimbursement of loss. Therefore, the claim to reimburse the loss is rejected.



11. In the result, petition is allowed in part directing the opposite party to recharge and service the battery free of cost and deliver the same to the complainant within reasonable time. In the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.