DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this this 29^th day of March  2023

     .                                                                                             

                           Filed on: 25/09/2018

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                               Member                

C.C. No.395/2018

COMPLAINANT

          E.G.Gopakumar, Ushes, Thareparambil House, Tripunithura 682 301.

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

(O.p1 rep. by Adv.Sabu P. Joseph,Koyikkal Chambers, C.P.Ummer Road, College P.O., Ernakulam)

          2)       Mr. Manoj P.M, AABIM Enterprises, Jos Tailoring Building                            S.N.Junction, Tripunithura

(o.p2 rep. by Adv.Frijo K., 3^rd Floor, Patel Complex, Basin Road, Ernakulam, Pin-682 031)

F I N A L   O R D E R

D.B. Binu, President.

1)       A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

          The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the 1^st opposite party is globally renowned EXIDE Industries Ltd, 59E Chowringhee Road, Kolkata 700020 well-known for its products and services. The belief of its strong brand value and proclaimed efficient aftersales services which the 2^nd  opposite party had assured and made the complainant believe, the complainant had purchased one EXIDE IT 400 115 AH Tubular battery with four-year full replacement assurance against cash invoice. The 2^nd  opposite party AABIM Enterprises is a well-known retail outlet and hence, the complainant was assured that they are authorized dealers of the products further, they had assured the complainant of an extended warranty as evident from the invoice and all incidental support and services for the operation of the product. The EXIDE IT 400 battery had smoothly worked during the initial periods of purchase, but later in the month of July 2018, the backup time of the battery seemed to be very low and the matter was informed to the dealer immediately. On approaching the 2^nd opposite party from where the purchase was affected, the service personnel of the dealer came and inspected the battery, and he himself topped up the battery with distilled water for the battery and the cost of the same was paid by the complainant. Even after when the system was put on as instructed, no improvement was seen and the same was reported to the dealer. Again, the technician sent by the dealer inspected the system and he was convinced that the battery is not working properly. He also informed the complainant that this particular brand had some problems and now the same is not in the market. The battery was purchased by the complainant considering the brand name of 1^st opposite party and believing the assurances of the 2nd opposite party in the year 2015 and in less than four years, the battery got damaged beyond repair. The complainant’s despair, when the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party the complainant was shocked to see the callous and indifferent attitude of the 2^nd  opposite party as they confirmed that the defect in the battery cannot be rectified at all and he had also informed the complainant that this particular brand had some problem and now the same is not in the market. The dealer is delaying delivery of the product and the complainant is afraid the period of replacement warranty may get elapsed. The complainant had to incur a severe loss for repairing the battery solely due to the deceptive actions of the opposite parties. The complainant had availed the services of the 2^nd  opposite party by paying due consideration and bought the battery under the brand of the 1^st opposite party being assured of its goodwill. This is the pinnacle of deceptive practice by the opposite parties and this needs to be termed as a deceptive practice by the opposite parties for wrongful gains after collecting huge amounts without providing efficient and timely repair or service making the product non-usable. Therefore, the actions of the opposite parties are prejudicial to the settled principles under consumer protection laws and other settled principles of law. The opposite parties lured the complainant to purchase the EXIDE IT 400 battery assuring a high-quality product and efficient service when 2^nd opposite party unreasonably rejected the complainant’s claim to repair the EXIDE IT 400 battery and they have not replaced imposing irresponsible loss, hardship, and mental agony upon the complainant.  The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite parties to replace the EXIDE IT 400 battery with a new battery, to pay Rs.1,00,000/-. as compensation for mental pain and agony sustained by the complainant on account of the deficiency in service by the opposite parties, to direct the opposite parties not to indulge in any deceptive or deficient trade practice similar to the one played upon the complainant referred in the case and the cost of the litigation.

2.  Notices

          Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice but did not file their versions. Consequently, the opposite parties are set ex-parte.

3) . Evidence

          The complainant had produced 2 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 and  A-2.

   Exhibit A-1. The copy of Invoice no.AE/C15/02 dt.6.3.2015

Exhibit A-2. The copy of Field service Report no.26349 dt.8.8.2018.

4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i)        Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii)       Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?

iii)      If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?

iv)      Costs of the proceedings if any?

5)       The issues mentioned above are considered together and are        answered as follows:

          As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment.  The complainant had produced a copy of Invoice No.AE/C15/02 dated 06.03.2015 issued by the 2^nd  opposite party  to the complainant (Exhibit A-1). Hence, the complainant is a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.

          The above case is filed by the complainant for compensation for the deficiency in service of opposite parties in connection with the purchase of a battery.  The battery was purchased by the complainant considering the brand name of 1^st opposite party and believing the assurances of the 2nd opposite party in the year 2015 and in less than four years, the battery got damaged beyond repair. A copy of the Field Service Report(No.26349 dated 08.08.2018.) was also produced by the complainant before the commission (Exbt.A-2).

          The complainant submitted that the dubious and deceptive actions of the opposite parties have caused the complainant severe hardships, mental agony, and losses. The complainant had purchased the battery believing the goodwill attached to the 1^st opposite party’s brand name and believing the assurances given by the 2^nd opposite party that timely and efficient services shall be given as and when required. The unprivileged service and unresponsive attitude of the 2^nd  opposite party as well as the inaction of the 1^st opposite party by not replacing the product for which four years full replacement was assured during the purchase of the product amounts to deficiency the complainant in service and unfair trade practices and is detrimental to the interest of the consumers at large.  The opposite parties lured the complainant to purchase the EXIDE IT 400 battery assuring a high-quality product and efficient service when 2^nd opposite party unreasonably rejected the complainant’s claim to repair the EXIDE IT 400 battery and they have not replaced imposing irresponsible loss, hardship, and mental agony upon the complainant.  Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice but did not file their versions. Consequently, the opposite parties are set ex-parte.

          We have also noticed that Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties 1 and 2 but did not file their versions. Hence both opposite parties set ex-parte. The complainant had produced 2 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-2.  But the opposite parties did not make any attempt to participate in the above proceedings before this Commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-prate order passed against it. It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

          The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them.  Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties.  We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).

          The opposite parties had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite parties in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.

          We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

          In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:

(i)      The Opposite Parties shall replace the EXIDE IT 400 battery with a new        battery within or refund Rs 12,500/- towards the cost of the battery as       per Exhibit A-1 invoice to the complainant.

(ii)      Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental     pain and agony sustained by the complainant on account of the      deficiency in service by the opposite parties.

(iii)     The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs. 5000/- towards        the cost of the proceedings.

          The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. The opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @7.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Ambily transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this 29^th day of March 2023.

                                                                               Sd/-              

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-                                                                                 V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-              

                                                                    Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

     Exhibit A-1. The copy of Invoice No.AE/C15/02 dt.6.3.2015

Exhibit A-2. The copy of Field service Report no.26349 dt.8.8.2018.