The complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

1. The complaint in short is as follows:-

                   The complainant purchased one UPS inverter from the 1^stopposite party on 29/02/2016 with warranty of four years.  During 2016 November, there was a cracking

sound from the UPS inverter and it was informed the first opposite party by the complainant. The UPS was not working during the power brake.  Then after one week a staff of 2^nd opposite party attended the complaint and replaced the UPS device thereafter three days.  Thereafter the complainant received an exorbitant electricity bill for Rs. 1506/-. Regularly the complainant was received current bill to the range of Rs. 500/-.  The complainant informed the same to the second opposite party and then one technician   attached to the opposite party examined the UPS and found that the inverter is charging even after full charge.  The technician told that, it was the reason for excess electricity bill.  Then the battery was taken to the first opposite party shop and on examination it was found the battery is not defective .Thereafter first opposite party called second opposite party and demanded to examine UPS once again and a technician was deputed for the same from the second opposite party and at that time it is told that the UPS is defect free and the fault is to battery.  The battery was taken to the first opposite party shop and it was returned after one week. Thereafter also the complaint to the inverter continued.  The complainant purchased a battery from the first opposite party in the year 2013.

2.           It was told by the first opposite party that due to fault of UPS the battery became defective.  Due to non-working of the inverter, the complainant was issued excess current bill and also the study of his daughter affected.  UPS inverter is not working and so complainant is not using the same. He is suffering inconvenience and mental agony due to the bitter experience. 

3.      The complainant purchased UPS inverter for Rs. 13,500/-. Due to defective functioning of the instrument complainant caused financial loss and the opposite party did not care to rectify the defect or replace the inverter. The complainant and his family are in difficulty due to non-working of the inverter.

4.        The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and so approached the Commission seeking direction to refund the cost of Rs. 13500/- of the UPS Inverter along with compensation of Rs. 25000/- and cost of Rs. 1000/-.

5.        On admission of the complaint  issued notice to opposite parties and on receipt of notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed version and documents. 

6.      The opposite parties admitted that the complainant purchased UPS inverter from the first opposite party on 29/02/2016.  The opposite parties submitted that complainant had purchased an inverter battery and also one square-wave inverter in the year 2013 and that instrument was with warranty of two years.  After completing warranty period of two years complainant approached first opposite party and purchased one sine-wave inverter worth Rs. 6000/-.  But at that time the battery which was having two-year warranty was not changed by the complainant after expiry of warranty period.  The complainant was told that the UPS inverter will work only on the basis of capacity of the battery.  But the complainant insisted only to change the inverter and not to change battery.  The opposite party admit that the complainant purchased the UPS inverter during November 2016 and there was complaint to the inverter and it was noted that even after power failure the UPS was not working and it was informed to the first opposite party and one technician deputed from 2^nd opposite party and on examination defective UPS inverter was replaced also.  At that time the complainant was told the capacity of the battery has reduced and on replacement of battery the best result will be obtained from inverter. The opposite party denied that the complainant was issued additional electricity bill due to defect of battery, inverter supplied by the opposite party was the reason for the same, it was told that the additional bill was issued due to defect of inverter charging even saturation of charge.  On 14/01/2017 immediately after receipt of complaint from the complainant, second opposite party deputed technician and the complaint was rectified.  But after expiry of the warranty period of battery the complainant had not availed or requested any sort of service from the first opposite party. 

7.      The warranty for the battery purchased in the year 2013 was only two years and the complainant approached opposite party with the complaint only after expiry of warranty period.  So, it cannot be admitted that there was deficiency in service during the warranty period.    The complainant received extra result from the battery which is more than the expectation.  So, it cannot be correct to allege that there was deficiency or defect to the product as alleged.  The statement that battery became defective due to complaint of UPS inverter was never told by opposite party to the   complainant.  The opposite party also denied the averment that his daughter is not able to study due to the issue, he is not using the inverter is not correct. The opposite party provided service to the complainant whenever it was demanded. But the complainant was using a battery which is out dated one and result of inverter depends on the efficiency of the battery was clearly told to the complainant but the complainant threatened the opposite party. The cost of the UPS inverter told as Rs.13,500/- is not correct and it is only Rs. 6000/-.  All the issues are caused due to non-compliance of instructions given by the opposite parties.  The opposite parties also submitted that the complainant replaced square-wave inverter with sine- wave inverter for Rs.6000/-.  At that time inverter shown the complaint of overcharging and it was replaced at the request of complainant. Thereafter complainant raised same complaint and so opposite party examined the defects through technician and they made certain interim arrangements and advised for replacing the battery.  The complainant was not prepared to accept the advice but compelled to replace inverter.  If at all inverter is replaced, till the changing of the present battery the issue will continue.  The opposite party was prepared to convince the facts through working the instruments at the place of opposite party, but the complainant was not prepared to accept any possibility of advice to redress his grievance, but he claims compensation and cost which the opposite parties are not at all liable and so the complaint is to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.

8.           The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents.  Documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext.A1 to A7. Ext.A1 is warranty card issued date 29/2/2016, Ext.A2 is copy of Service report, dated 14/01/2017, Ext.A3 is Copy of electricity bill dated 09/09/2016, Ext. A4 is copy of Electricity bill dated 09/11/2016, Ext.A5 is copy of electricity bill dated 11/01/2017, Ext. A6 is copy of electricity bill dated 09/03/2017, Ext. A7 is copy of  bill history. Opposite parties are not filed documents. Commission report marked as Ext.C1. Both sides filed notes of arguments. 

9.     Heard both side  perused affidavit and documents. Now following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency in service or defect to the articles involved in the complaint?
2.  Relief and cost.

10.      Point No.1and 2

          The admitted case of complainant and opposite parties are that the complainant purchased UPS inverter from the first opposite party.  The complainant submit that it has got warranty of four years and it is purchased on 29/2/2016.  The complainant heard an unusual sound from the inverter during 2016 November and on reporting the same to opposite party it was replaced by another one.   But the complaint of inverter continued and so on 14^th January 2017 he reported the complaint and a technician called Mr. Sumesh attended the complaint.  As per Ext. A2 document the reported problem was overcharging and problem observed was calibration. Exts. A3 to A7 documents are electricity bills served to the complainant. The case is that due to defective functioning of UPS inverter there was excess consumption of energy and so he was compelled to pay enhanced amount as electricity charge.  The first opposite party on receipt of information regarding the complaint deputed a technician to examine the issue and it was found the battery was defect free.  Then it was contacted second opposite party and he deputed a technician and found that inverter is defect free. But there was some issue regarding charging the inverter and so slight adjustment was made in the inverter.  The second opposite party contended that defect was to the battery and not for the inverter.  The opposite parties submit that the battery was purchased by the complainant in the year 2013 and the warranty for the same was only for two years.  According to opposite parties the performance of the inverter depends upon the efficiency of the battery.  The specific contention of first opposite party is that the warranty period of battery was expired 2015 itself and so the complainant advised to replace the battery but he hesitated to do so. 

11.          It can be seen that the complainant purchased battery as well as inverter from the first opposite party.  The contention that warranty period of the battery was expired and that is the reason for the defective functioning of inverter is the issue to be examined.   Expiry of warranty does not mean the life of the battery ends thereby.  But the case of opposite parties is that the complainant purchased one square -wave inverter and battery in the year 2013 and subsequently the inverter was replaced with sine-wave inverter for an amount of Rs. 6000/-.But it can be seen that the UPS inverter purchased in 2016 February which was found defective during the month of November and the same was replaced. The complainant does not admit the allegation of the opposite parties that the UPS inverter purchased in the year 2013 and was substituted by another UPS in the year 2016.  Ext. A1 warranty card shows purchase of an UPS inverter on 29/02/2016.  There is no document to show the purchase of inverter in the year 2013 and replacement of the same in the year 2016.  So, it is not proper to hold the present UPS inverter was a substituted one or replaced one against the UPS inverter purchased by the complainant in the year 2013, as per document. 

12.       The complainant claims the value of the UPS inverter as Rs. 13,500/- but no document has produced.  The contention of the opposite parties is that the value of the UPS Inverter is only Rs.6000/-.   But neither the complainant nor the opposite parties produced any document to establish the cost of the disputed UPS inverter.  The opposite parties are competent to the establish the cost of the UPS inverter in dispute since they are dealing with business of UPS Inverter and batteries.  It is not possible to keep purchase bills always by the consumers. So, we do not find any reason to disbelieve the version of the complainant that the cost of the inverter was Rs. 13,500/-. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the side of opposite parties.  He submitted that his daughter, who is studying  8^th standard also affected due to the defective functioning of the inverter.

13.          From the affidavit and documents and also from the version and notes of arguments from both sides, it can be seen that the complainant purchased UPS inverter from the first opposite party and which is found to be defective. The expert commissioner examined the functioning of both battery and inverter. He has taken the inverter to his office and connected with new battery and checked the charging voltage and ampere.  He found that charging as steady and the cut off voltage is noted at 13.9V and normal charging voltage for tubular batteries vary from 14.1V to 14.6V. There is no explanation from the side of expert why the cut of voltage is noted as 13.9V. The expert also examined the efficiency of battery.  He has reported the battery was in disconnected state and also no state to test actively.   He has noted that sulphation in cells and bucking of plates. According to him it is commonly caused due to over discharge of battery or over charging the battery at a high rates or repeated deep discharge or continued operation of battery in starved condition.   The commissioner noted that the inverter was in good working condition, but the same was replaced by the manufacturer recently and the old inverter was not available for inspection.  He reported that the condition of the failure of the battery is not by aging or degradation but it was in dead condition.  So, it is not proper to find that battery of the complainant used for working UPS inverter as efficient one.  The case of the opposite party is that the defective functioning of inverter is the result of complaints to the battery. The commissioners’ report establishes the same. 

14.   In this complaint it can be seen that the complainant purchased battery as well as inverter from the first opposite party.  The first opposite party deputed a technician and found the battery is working properly. On the other side the second opposite party contended that the defect is due to the complaint to the battery. The case of the complainant is that inverter is not working properly and the defect is to UPS inverter.  The second opposite party offered that he is prepared to demonstrate the efficiency of inverter connecting inverter to a good battery from his place.  That means he is confident that the inverter is defect free one. There was no attempt except the examination of commissioner to see the exact condition of inverter. There is no reason to discard the report of expert commission. So, there is no document to see the inverter was defective one as alleged by the complaint. In the absence of the same it is not possible to allow the complaint as prayed.

15.         In the light of above facts and circumstances Commission dismiss the complaint.

            Dated this 15^thday of March, 2022.