IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA

Monday,  the 30^th   day of June, 2014.

Filed on 06..11..2013

Present

1)         Smt. Elizabeth George (President)

2)         Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

3)         Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

IN

CC/No.335/2013

Between

                Complainant:                                                             Opposite parties-

Sri.Robin.P.S.(1) The Authorised Signatory

S/o Sadanandan                                        M/s.DAS TRADERS

Padakulangara                                           Near X-Ray Junction 

P.O.Vayalar – 688 536                              Cherthala, Alappuzha

Cherthala, Alappuzha                                (Adv.P.S.Anilkumar)

(2)       The Authorised Signatory

M/s.Southern Batteries (P) Ltd.

Unit I, Plot No.30

KIADB INSUTRIAL AREA

Bommasandra

Bangalore – 560 099

Karnataka.

O R D E R

SMT.JASMINE.D. (MEMBER)

The complainant filed this complaint before the Forum on 06.11.2013 alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.

The brief facts of the allegations of the complainant are as follows:

The complainant had purchased 4 HI – Power 20 AH VRLA batteries from the 1^st opposite party on 07.11.2012. He had paid an amount of Rs.12,500/- towards the cost and the 1^st opposite party issued a receipt.  Also 1^st opposite party offered 1 year warranty for the said batteries.  But after 2 months from the date of purchase of these batteries, one of the batteries became dead and this was brought to the notice of the 1^st opposite party.   The dead battery was replaced in the unit.  The complainant further alleged that these four batteries are serially connected as one unit and the defect of one of the batteries will affect the life of the entire unit.  Also the 1^st opposite party is well aware of this issue and advised the complainant let the battery unit undergo free service on several occasions.  The main problem of the batteries is that it lost its storing capacity and unit is cadaverous.  The demand of the complainant to replace the battery unit was turned down by the opposite party, not fulfilling the warranty contract.  Also the opposite parties have not done anything to get the complainant grievances redressed. Hence the complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

2. Notices were served to opposite parties.  1^st opposite party has appeared before the forum  and filed his version.   2^nd opposite party has not appeared before the Forum.  Hence 2^nd opposite party was set ex parte.

3. The version filed by the 1^st opposite party is as follows:-

The complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant has no locus standi to file this complaint.  The complainant had purchased the 4 Nos. Hi power 20 A.H. VRLA battery as per the invoice No.2025 dtd. 07/11/2012.  For that the complainant had paid Rs.11,014/- as the value of the battery and an amount of Rs.1,486/- was paid as VAT.  The product has 6 months replacement warranty and 6 months pro- rate based warranty given by 2^nd opposite party to the consumers from the date of sale.  The complainant is not entitled to 1 year replacement warranty.  As an authorized agent the 1^st opposite party is rendering proper services and other conditions contained in the warranty.  At the time of purchase being an electrician, the complainant was also satisfied with battery which he had purchased.   Also contended that that the complainant never made any complaint regarding any defect of batteries which he had purchased from the opposite party.  If any replacement or any service was rendered to the customer the 1^st opposite party keeping proper and correct records.  The battery so replaced would have a different Sl.No.    It is also noted in that service record and on the bill issued to the complainant.  The complainant is wilfully not mentioning the serial number of the batteries, which he has purchased with ulterior motives.  Also if any replacement was so made the 1^st opposite party would have checked all the batteries and if the serial batteries were defective due to damage of one of the batteries, the 1^st opposite party would have definitely replaced the entire serial batteries as per the terms and conditions contained in warranty card.  The complainant never visited 1^st opposite party with such a complaint and therefore there was not an opportunity for the 1^st opposite party to effect replacement of the one of the batteries or to give any such advice to the complainant to undergo frequent free services.  The complainant after the purchase of the serial set of batteries as alleged never visited their workshop or never made any complaint to the 1^st opposite party.  Also the 1^st opposite party never acted willfully or negligently and there is no lack of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and hence the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation of Rs.25,000/- .

4. The complainant in this case was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 and  Ext.A2 were marked.  No documents were marked from the side of the opposite party.

5.    Based on the allegations of the complainant and contentions of the 1^st opposite party, the  points that arose for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Points 1 and 2:-

            6. The complainant in this case filed proof affidavit and produced 2 documents.  His proof affidavit is in tune with his complaint.  The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents Ext.A1 and Ext.A2 were marked as Exts.Ext.A1 is the cash invoice dtd. 07.11.2012 issued by the opposite party towards payment for 4 numbers of HI – Power 20 AH VRLA batteries.  From this it can be seen that the complainant had purchased 4 numbers of HI – Power 20 AH VRLA batteries from the 1^st opposite party manufactured  by the 2^nd opposite party and he remitted a total amount of Rs.12,500/- .  Ext.A2 is the warranty card issued to the complainant.

            7. The case of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased 4 batteries from the 1^st opposite party manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party on 07.11.2012.  After 2 months from the date of purchase of the battery, one of the batteries became dead and it was replaced.  But these four batteries are serially connected as one unit and the defect of one battery will affect the life of the entire unit and it lost the storing capacity and the unit was cadaverous.  The demand of the complainant to replace the battery unit was not fulfilled by the opposite party.   Also the defect arose in the warranty period.             The main contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the complainant never visited their shop with such a complaint and if such defect was noticed the 1^st opposite party would have definitely replaced the entire system as per the terms of the warranty.    From the evidence it is clear that the complainant has approached the opposite party and one of the batteries was replaced and the serial number of the battery is also mentioned in Ext.A2.   Also at the time of cross examining, the complainant, the counsel of the 1^st opposite party put a question whether the serial number of the replaced buttery was mentioned in the warranty card and then the complainant pointed out the 1^st opposite party who was present in the court hall and deposed that it is he who made the entry and the serial No. of the replaced battery is 814.  From the document produced by the complainant it is clear that he had purchased 4 HI – Power 20 AH VRLA batteries from the 1^st opposite party manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and defect was noticed in the warranty period and the same was brought to the notice of the opposite party and the opposite party had replaced only one of the batteries.  Since the batteries are serially connected, defect in one battery will affect the entire unit.  In this case, only one of the batteries was replaced. Its serial number and the serial number of the replaced battery can be seen from the Ext.A2.  The opposite party has not produced any evidence to substantiate their contention that the complainant had never visited their shop and demanded replacement of battery unit.  So the Forum is of the opinion that the allegation put forward by the complainant against the opposite party is highly genuine and there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  So the complaint is to be allowed.

            Further directed to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

            In the result, the opposite parties 1^st and 2^nd are directed to replace the entire battery unit to the satisfaction of the complainant. Also pay an amount of Rs,2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) towards compensation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of June, 2014.

Sd/-  Smt. Jasmine D (Member)

Sd/-  Smt.Elizabeth George (President)       

Sd/-  Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)

APPENDIX:

Evidence of  the Complainant:

PW1 -  Robin P.S.

Ext.A1 -  Bill for Rs.12,500/- dtd. 07.11.12 issued by 1^st opposite party.

Ext.A2 -  Warranty card of the battery issued by 2^nd opposite party dtd.07.11.12

Evidence of  the opposite party:  Nil     / True Copy //

                                                                                                                                 By Order

                                                                                                           Senior Superintendent.

To                     Complainant/Opposite parties/SF

Typed by: Pg/-

Comprd by:-