DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 1st day of September, 2023.
Filed on: 23/11/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. NO.486/2018
COMPLAINANT
Rajeev Kumar M R, S/o. Rajan K.E., Muneppillil House, Kadungallur P.O., Aluva, Pin 683110
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
M/s. Classic Motors, Chendamangalam Junction, North Paravur 683513. Rep. by its Manager
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
- 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 complainant bought an electric scooter and four batteries from the opposite party on January 18, 2018. During the floods in August 2018, both the scooter and batteries were submerged, resulting in battery failure. The complainant informed the opposite party about this issue. However, the opposite party refused warranty coverage, citing the flood damage. The complaint seeks a resolution where the opposite party is directed to reimburse Rs. 12,550, the cost of the batteries.
2) Notice
The Commission sent a notice to the opposite party, who subsequently provided their version.
3) VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
Classic Motors is an authorized dealer for Hero Electric Company. However, during the floods in August 2018, the complainant's vehicle and its attached battery were submerged in water for an extended period, leading to a breakdown. The complainant acknowledged this fact. Subsequently, the complainant reached out to the manufacturer and was informed that the manufacturer's warranty solely covers defects arising from manufacturing and does not extend to damages caused by external factors like floods. The manufacturer pointed out that this exclusion is clearly stated in the warranty terms. Classic Motors promptly conveyed this information to the complainant.
The complainant was apprised by the manufacturer that Classic Motors, being the authorized dealer of Hero Electric Company, can only administer the warranty provided by the manufacturer. Any damages resulting from flooding are not covered under the manufacturer's warranty. Hence, this response and the accompanying details are presented with the request that Classic Motors be excused from further involvement in this case
4) Evidence
The complainant provided a proof affidavit and one document, which is marked as Exhibit A-1.
Exhibit A-1. Copies of the Invoice and warranty card issued by the opposite party.
5) 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?
6) 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 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 Invoice and warranty card issued by the opposite party. (Exhibit A-1). This document shows the payment made by the complainant to the opposite party for the trip. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
In the matter at hand, the commission diligently examined the warranty card using a magnifying lens. Despite this thorough scrutiny, the commission could not identify any clause within the warranty card that explicitly excluded coverage in cases of flood damage. It is noteworthy, however, that the opposite party asserts the existence of such an exclusion within the warranty terms.
The deliberate inclusion of such conditions in fine print, deliberately designed to be practically illegible, raises significant concerns regarding the manufacturers' underlying motives. This stratagem brings to light a clear intent on the part of the manufacturers. This practice has previously been addressed by the National Commission, which has unequivocally labelled such actions as unfair trade practices.
Even individuals with a good education might struggle to fully understand the rules and terms set by companies and manufacturers. But what about ordinary people? The Honourable National Commission made it clear that if a company prints its "terms and conditions" in very small and hard-to-read letters, consumers are not required to follow those terms that were imposed on them without their agreement. This idea was highlighted by the National Commission in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs. Skypak Couriers Pvt. Ltd on 14 December 2001 (II (2002) CPJ24(NC), and later in the case of Blaze Flash Couriers (P) Ltd. vs. Rohit J. Poladiya And Anr. on 9 January 2008 (Equivalent citations: I (2008) CPJ 452.
It is crucial to have clear and transparent terms in contracts, warranties, and agreements to protect consumers' rights and promote fairness in business practices. In accordance with this viewpoint, regulatory bodies should take strong actions against manufacturers who engage in practices that harm consumers.
In the context of the current litigation, it holds significant weight that the complainant has solely implicated the battery dealer, excluding the battery manufacturer from this legal action. However, it is pivotal to recognize that the primary responsibility for the replacement of the battery rests with its manufacturer, as established in the case of In Ram Shankar Yadav v JP Associates Ltd [I (2012) CPJ 110] the Honourable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission clarified that:
‘In any case, it is settled law that for any manufacturing defect in a product, it is the manufacturer and not the dealer who could be held liable’.
Even if the terms of the product's warranty were to be construed in favor of the complainant, the Commission possesses the authority to direct the battery manufacturer to either replace the product or provide a refund to the consumer. This prerogative is grounded in the fact that the complainant has not impleaded the battery manufacturer as a party to this case, as highlighted in the case of Classic Automobiles vs. Leela Anand Mishra 2010-CPI-235 (NC) where the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that the complaint is not sustainable without impleading the manufacturer as a party. The non-inclusion of a necessary party could result in the dismissal of a complaint.
Taking into account these legal principles and the context of the present matter, the Commission has determined to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the complainant has not impleaded the battery manufacturer as a party in this case.
Upon thorough deliberation, the issues outlined from (ii) to (vi) above have been found to be unfavourable for the complainant. Consequently, the following orders have been issued:
ORDER
Given the circumstances discussed above, the Commission has determined that the arguments put forth by the complainant do not hold merit. As a result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Top of Form
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 1st day of September, 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 Invoice and warranty card issued by the opposite party.
Opposite party’s evidence
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 486/2016
Order Date: 01/09/2023
