DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 30^th day of May 2024.                                                                                            

                           Filed on: 11/09/2020

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

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

C.C. No: 251/2020

COMPLAINANT

Leela Subramanian, W/o. late Sahramnian, Bhagyathara Lane, Mamangalam, Cochin-682025.

(Rep. by Adv. Jimmy George, 2^nd Floor, Mulerickal Building, Kombara, Market Road North End, Ernakulam 682018)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Teamsustain Ltd., Team House', Plot No: 71, MRA, Kakkanad, Cochin- 682030 represented by its Managing Director
2. Managing Director, Teamsustain Ltd., Team House, Plot No: 71, MRA. Kakkanad, Cochin-682030.

(Rep. by Adv. Saji Mathew, Denu Joseph, 64/3147, Kalabhavan Road, Cochin 18)

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 complainant, a senior citizen, purchased 16 "Trojan Battery - T105RE" batteries from the opposite party's company, which is engaged in the supply, installation, and maintenance of inverter batteries and related infrastructure for profit. The first opposite party is the company, represented by its managing director, and the second opposite party is the managing director of the first opposite party company. Based on the promises, assurances, and representations made by the opposite parties, the complainant bought these batteries for personal home use to power her solar panels.

The batteries were supplied under Tax Invoice No: TS/13/2016-17 dated 17-01-2017, for a total payment of Rs. 2,62,080.00. The opposite parties assured the complainant that the batteries were of superior quality and came with a five-year warranty from the date of purchase, promising to replace any defective batteries during this period.

However, from January 2019 onwards, the batteries began to show issues such as abrupt charge drain and automatic shutdown. The complainant immediately reported these problems to the opposite parties through personal visits, phone calls, and emails, with additional follow-ups from her friend, Mr. Girish Nambiar. Despite these efforts, the opposite parties avoided addressing the battery defects.

The complainant, living alone, relied on the solar panels and batteries to light her house. Due to the opposite parties deficient service and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, she had to spend additional money to buy batteries and a UPS from another supplier. Despite repeated requests for replacement of the faulty batteries, the opposite parties failed to act, even though the batteries were still within the warranty period. The opposite parties refusal to replace the batteries constitutes a deficiency in service, making them liable for replacing the faulty batteries at no cost to the complainant.

As a result of the prolonged non-replacement, the complainant incurred significant expenses for electricity and suffered severe mental agony, stress, and trauma due to the opposite parties' neglect and unwillingness to address the issue. On 17-02-2020, the complainant sent a lawyer's notice to the opposite parties, demanding the replacement of the batteries within seven days or a refund of Rs. 2,62,080.00 with 12% interest per annum, along with Rs. 5,00,000.00 as compensation for mental distress. The opposite parties received the notice but did not comply with its demands.

The complainant contends that the opposite parties’ actions constitute a deficiency in service and amount to cheating under the Consumer Protection Act. The cause of action for this complaint arose on 17-01-2017 (the purchase date), from January 2019 (when the defects appeared), on 17-02-2020 (the date of the lawyer's notice), and on various other dates when the opposite parties were contacted.

The Complainant seeks a refund of Rs. 2,62,080.00 with 12% annual interest, compensation of Rs. 5,00,000.00 with 12% annual interest for mental distress, and reimbursement of legal costs.

2) Notice

The Commission issued notices to the opposite parties, and in response, the opposite parties provided their version.

3. THE VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

The 2nd Opposite Party, being the Managing Director of the 1st Opposite Party, cannot be held personally liable as this position is subject to change and the individual in this role is not personally responsible for the company's transactions. The allegations that the battery started showing problems such as abrupt charge drain and automatic shutdown in January 2019 are denied. The batteries were examined by the 1st Opposite Party's representative and found to have no issues.

The Opposite Parties are not liable to replace or repair the battery based on unsubstantiated claims of defects. The batteries were supplied without any manufacturing defects, and there is no deficiency of service on their part. Claims related to consequential expenses such as electricity bills, mental agony, stress, and trauma are baseless and not attributable to the Opposite Parties' actions. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are not liable for these alleged expenses. The legal notice issued by the Complainant is baseless, and the demands made are excessive and without legal foundation. The notice should be rejected. There is no cause of action or valid reason for the complaint. The reliefs sought by the Complainant are excessive and intended for unlawful enrichment.

For these reasons, the Opposite Parties request that the complaint be dismissed with compensatory costs.

3)  Evidence

The complainant had produced 9 documents that were marked as Exhibits A-1 to A-4. The complainant was examined as PW-1.

Exhibit A1: The original power of attorney executed by the complainant on 27-05-2022.

Exhibit A2: A true photocopy of the tax invoice in Form No: 8B issued by Teamsustain Ltd. to the complainant dated 17-01-2017

Exhibit A3: The office copy of the lawyer's notice issued to the opposite parties dated 17-02-2020

Exhibit A4: The original postal receipt for issuance of the notice.

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 complainants?

iii)     If so, whether the complainants are 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 35 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 complainants had produced A true photocopy of the tax invoice in Form No: 8B issued by Teamsustain Ltd. to the complainant dated 17-01-2017 (EXHIBIT A-2). Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.

Sri. Jimmy George, counsel for the Complainant, summarized the submission as follows:

1. Representation and Exhibit A1 The complainant, a senior citizen, is represented through a power of attorney due to old age ailments and being bedridden. The original power of attorney executed by the complainant on 27-05-2022 is Exhibit A1.

2. the opposite parties' Information The opposite party's company is involved in the supply, installation, and maintenance of inverter batteries and related infrastructure for profit. The 1st respondent is the company represented by its managing director, and the 2nd respondent is the managing director of the 1st opposite party's company.
3. Purchase Details and Exhibit A2 Based on the promises, assurances, and representations made by the opposite parties, the complainant purchased 16 'Trojan Battery - T105RE' for personal home use to electrify her house with solar panels. The batteries were supplied under Tax Invoice No: TS/13/2016-17 dated 17-01-2017 for Rs. 2,62,080.00 (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand and Eighty Only). The opposite parties assured a 5-year warranty and agreed to replace any defective batteries within this period. A true photocopy of the tax invoice in Form No: 8B issued by Teamsustain Ltd. to the complainant dated 17-01-2017 is Exhibit A2.
4. Defects and Communication Attempts The batteries began showing defects such as abrupt charge drain and automatic shutdowns in January 2019. The complainant, along with her friend Mr Girish Nambiar, informed the opposite parties about these issues personally, by phone, and by email. The opposite parties evaded rectifying the defects under various pretexts.
5. Living Situation. The complainant resides alone and relies on the solar panels and batteries purchased from the opposite parties for lighting her home.
6. Additional Expenses and Continued Requests Due to the opposite parties' deficient service and the COVID-19 pandemic, the complainant had to incur additional expenses to buy batteries and UPS from another supplier. Despite repeated requests, the opposite parties did not replace the faulty batteries, which were still within the warranty period.
7. Costs Incurred and Mental Agony The complainant incurred significant expenses using electricity from the Electricity Board due to the non-replacement of batteries. She also suffered severe mental agony, stress, and trauma due to the opposite party's negligent and adamant attitude.
8. Lawyer's Notice and Exhibit A3, A4 The complainant issued a lawyer's notice to the opposite parties on 17-02-2020, demanding replacement of the batteries within 7 days or a refund of Rs. 2,62,080.00 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment till repayment, along with Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental agony, stress, and trauma. The opposite parties received the notice but did not comply with the demands. The office copy of the lawyer's notice issued to the opposite parties dated 17-02-2020 and the original postal receipt for issuance of the notice is Exhibit A3 and Exhibit A4.
9. Deficiency in Service and Consumer Status the opposite parties have committed a deficiency in service by not replacing the faulty batteries and have cheated the complainant. The complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.

The argument notes on behalf of Opposite Parties 1 and 2 is summarized as follows:

1. Responsibility of the Managing Director The 2nd opposite party is the Managing Director of the 1st Opposite Party. As this is a position subject to changes, the individual acting as the Managing Director cannot be held personally liable for transactions conducted by the 1st Opposite Party.
2. Battery Examination and Exhibit B1 Upon receiving the complainant's issue about abrupt charge drain and automatic shutdowns starting in 2019, the 1st Opposite Party's representative examined the batteries. They found no problems or complaints as alleged. Therefore, the opposite parties are not responsible or liable to replace or repair the battery based on mere allegations of defects. The examination report is Exhibit B1.
3. Timeline and Condition at Purchase The battery was purchased in 2017, and the issue was raised after two years. It is clear that there was no complaint at the time of purchase. The opposite parties affirm that the battery supplied to the complainant had no manufacturing defects and that there is no deficiency of service on their part. Importantly, the alleged battery issue has not been scientifically proven by the complainant.
4. No Deficiency of Service and Lack of Cause of Action Given the circumstances, there is no deficiency of service, and the opposite parties are not liable for an undetected complaint based on mere allegations. There is no cause of action or reason for the complaint, and the reliefs sought are considered excessive and baseless.

We have carefully considered the submissions made at length by the learned counsel for both the complainant and the opposite parties, as well as all the evidence on record.

This judgement arises from the complaint filed by the complainant, a senior citizen, against the opposite parties. The complainant purchased 16 "Trojan Battery - T105RE" batteries from the first respondent company, Teamsustain Ltd., which is engaged in the supply, installation, and maintenance of inverter batteries and related infrastructure for profit. The second opposite party is the Managing Director of the first opposite-party company. The complainant alleges deficiency in service and negligence by the opposite parties, leading to significant financial loss and mental distress.

The complainant bought these batteries for personal home use to power her solar panels, based on the assurances and representations made by the opposite parties. The batteries were supplied under Tax Invoice No: TS/13/2016-17 dated 17-01-2017, for a total payment of Rs. 2,62,080.00. The opposite parties assured the complainant that the batteries were of superior quality and came with a five-year warranty from the date of purchase, promising to replace any defective batteries during this period.

From January 2019 onwards, the batteries began to show issues such as abrupt charge drain and automatic shutdown. Despite repeated complaints through personal visits, phone calls, and emails, the opposite parties failed to address the battery defects. The complainant, living alone and reliant on the batteries for lighting her house, incurred additional expenses to buy batteries and a UPS from another supplier due to the opposite parties' deficient service and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The opposite parties' refusal to replace the batteries within the warranty period constitutes a deficiency in service.

Analysis and Legal Reasoning

1. Maintainability of the Complaint

The complainant is a consumer as defined under Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, having purchased the batteries for consideration. The complaint is maintainable under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2. Deficiency in Service and Negligence

Deficiency in service is defined under Section 2 (11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming, or inadequacy in the quality, nature, and manner of performance required to be maintained by or under any law. The complainant has provided sufficient evidence, including the tax invoice (Exhibit A-2), the lawyer's notice (Exhibit A-3), and the postal receipt for issuance of the notice (Exhibit A-4). The opposite parties failed to address the defects in the batteries despite being within the warranty period, which clearly constitutes a deficiency in service.

3. Liability of the Opposite Parties

The opposite parties argued that the second the opposite party, as the Managing Director, cannot be held personally liable. However, as per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the company and its representatives can be held liable for deficiency in service. The opposite parties' failure to replace the defective batteries within the warranty period and the continued evasion of responsibility despite repeated complaints from the complainant establish their liability.

• Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta (1994) 1 SCC 243: The Supreme Court emphasized that public authorities and service providers are liable for deficiency in service, and consumers are entitled to compensation for the same.

The complainant has proven her case with substantial evidence, showing that the opposite parties failed to replace the defective batteries despite being within the warranty period. The opposite parties' refusal to address the issues caused significant financial loss and mental distress to the complainant, who is a senior citizen living alone. The opposite parties' actions amount to a clear deficiency in service and negligence.

We determine that issue numbers (i) to (iv) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence 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:

1. The Opposite Parties shall refund ₹2,62,080.00 (Rupees Two Lakh Sixty-Two Thousand and Eighty Only) to the complainant as per Exhibit A-2.
2. The Opposite Parties shall pay ₹50,000 (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony, stress, and trauma suffered by the complainant due to the significant service deficiency and unfair trade practices committed by the Opposite Parties.
3. The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant ₹10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards the cost of the proceedings.

The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to fulfil the aforementioned directives within 45 days of receiving this order. Should they fail to comply, the amounts specified in points (i) and (ii) will accrue interest at 12% per annum, calculated from the date of filing the complaint, which is September 11, 2020, until the date of payment.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on the 30^th day of May 2024.

Sd/-

D.B. Binu, President

                                                                                                Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order

Assistant Registrar

Appendix

Complainant’s Evidence

Exhibit A1: The original power of attorney executed by the complainant on 27-05-2022.

Exhibit A2: A true photocopy of the tax invoice in Form No: 8B issued by Teamsustain Ltd. to the complainant dated 17-01-2017

Exhibit A3: The office copy of the lawyer's notice issued to the opposite parties dated 17-02-2020

Exhibit A4: The original postal receipt for issuance of the notice.

Opposite party’s Exhibits

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 251/2020

Order Date: 30/05/2024