DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2023.
Filed on: 04/11/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C No. 353/2020
COMPLAINANT
M/s. Cosmotone Controls & Devices Meckadambu P. O., Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam District, Kerala -686691.Rep. by its Managing Partner M AN Sajan
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
M/s Firefly Batteries Private Limited, 199, Neelkanth Bungalows, 8/H Delhi Public school, Bhopal, Ahmedabad-380058, Rep. by its Managing Director Mr. Jinal Singh
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 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is a partnership firm comprising Mrs. Sudha Prasanth, Mrs. Anita Unnikrishnan, Mrs. Bindu Vijaya Pradeep, and Mr. Sajan VN. Mr. Sajan V N is the Managing Partner and others are the partners. The firm was formed for earning the livelihood of its partners by means of self-employment. The firm was engaged in assembling solar inverters and registered as an SSI unit. The complainant purchased 40 firefly batteries manufactured by the opposite party on different occasions from M/s JD Marketing, Kochi, the distributor of the opposite party tv paying Rs. 13500/- for each battery by believing the assurance given by the opposite parties regarding its superior quality and 5 years warranty offered by them. But 8 batteries out of the 40 batteries purchased from the opposite parties including the batteries bearing serial Nos. 404C194942(FF12DAG31), 404C194945 (FF12D1-G31),404C194943(FF12D1-G31), 404C194941 (FF12D1-G31), 404C19495(FF12D1-G31), 404C19495(FF1201- G31), 404C19495(FF12D1-G31, 404C19495 (FF12D1-G31) became defective within six months from the date of purchase by losing charge back up. The matter was taken up with the opposite party and they replaced some batteries. But the replaced batteries also became defective within a short period. Though the complainant contacted the opposite party repeatedly they have neither replaced the defective batteries nor refunded the price of them. Ultimately a lawyer notice was served on the opposite party. But they neither replied nor took any steps to redress the grievance of the complainant. The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite party to refund the price of the eight defective batteries Rs.1,08000/-, to pay Rs.50,000/-towards compensation for the mental agony, financial loss, and hardships suffered by him due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the unfair trade practice adopted by them, and the cost of the proceedings.
2. Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not file their version. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte.
3). Evidence
The complainant had filed a Proof affidavit and 5 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 and A-5.
Exhibit A- 1: Copies of the tax invoices (6 Nos.)
Exhibit A- 2: Copy of the warranty policy
Exhibit A- 3: Copy of the email sent to the opposite party
Exhibit A- 4: Office copy of the lawyer notices sent to the opposite party.
Exhibit A- 5: Provisional certificate issued by the Asst. Industries Officer.
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:
In the present case in hand, the complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced Copies of the tax invoices issued by the opposite party to the complainant (6 Nos.) (Ext.A-1). These documents revealed that the complainant had paid the requisite consideration for the product to the opposite party. Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
The complaint is regarding the defects of the batteries supplied by the opposite parties. Eight batteries out of 40 batteries purchased for assembling inverters became defective within the 6 months warranty period. Exhibits A-1 to A-5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not file their version. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is entitled to Rs.10, 8000/-( 13500 X 8), the price of the 8 defective batteries. The complaint has issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties (Exhibit A-4). But in vain. But they neither replied nor took any steps to redress the grievance of the complainant. The complainant failed to generate sufficient income to operate the business due to the recurring battery complaint. Thereby the very purpose of the formation of the firm has been defeated. The reluctance of the defective batteries with defect-free batteries amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade with the opposite parties to replace. Due to the misleading assurance given by the opposite party regarding the quality of the batteries, the complainant suffered a huge financial loss, mental agony, and hardships.
We have also noticed that a notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party but did not file their version.
The complainant has filed the Proof Affidavit and 5 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-5. All in support of his case. But the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to file a version.
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. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The Opposite Party has 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 Party in failing to provide the complainant’s desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We found the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. 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 party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
i. The opposite party shall refund the complainant Rs.1,08,000/- (Rupees one lakh eight thousand only) ( 13500 X 8) towards the price of the eight defective batteries.
ii. The opposite party shall pay the complainant Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation for the mental agony, financial loss, and hardships suffered by him due to the deficiency in service and the unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party .
- The opposite party shall also pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (ii) above also 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 Smt. K.P. Liji transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this 30th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit A- 1: Copies of the tax invoices (6 Nos.)
Exhibit A- 2: Copy of the warranty policy
Exhibit A- 3: Copy of the email sent to the opposite party
Exhibit A- 4: Office copy of the lawyer notices sent to the opposite party.
Exhibit A- 5: Provisional certificate issued by the Asst. Industries Officer.
OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 353/2019
Order Date: 30/03/2023
