NISSIE (INDIA) AGENCIES vs GANGULI

MR. D.P. Dewan, to be referred to as the complainant, purchased a new battery on 22.1.92 from the opposite party with a warranty of one year. He al so entered into an arrangement for the maintenance of the battery with the OP on payment. The car in which the battery was installed, stopped to move the starter on 11.3.93 just after about two months of the expiry of the warranty period. The complainant approached the OP and was informed that even though the OP was not liable to do any thing in the matter it offered to supply a new battery at 50% discounted price purely as a goodwill gesture. The complainant was not satisfied and he filed the complaint before the District Forum.

A reply was filed on behalf of the OP pointing out that service life of the battery depended upon proper maintenance and correct functioning of the electrical system. In the instant case the complainant was advised to avail of the opposite party''s free service every month but for a perusal of the guarantee-cum-service card it was revealed that check-ups were not regularly got done and this might be one of the reasons for per mature failure. It was reiterated that the OP offered to supply a new battery at 50% discount purely as a gesture of goodwill. An affidavit of Paban Kr. Kataky, General Manager of the OP was also filed in support of the written version. On a consideration of the matter the District Forum observed that there was no allegation of deficiency in service within the warranty period. It was further observed that the battery having been purchased by Mr. Dewan as Director of the company, the purchase was for commercial activity and the complainant was not a ''consumer'' and the complaint was not, therefore, maintainable. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. When the appeal was called on for hearnig, none appeared for the respondent. We have, therefore, heard Mr. Dewan, who argued in person.

The main contention of Mr. Dewan is that the respondent Company had been giving prominent advertisements in various papers holding out that the life of the exide battery is three to four years or even more. Such advertisements according to Mr. Dewan, conveyed the clear impression to an average consumer that the guarantee was for a period of 3-4 years. In the facts of the present case, however, the battery in question started showing defects as two cells thereof were found damaged, just after the expiry of two months of the completion of the warranty period. He contended that this was a clear case of unfair trade practice. Mr. Dewan further argued that no objection had been taken by the opposite party in written version or the affidavit that the battery has been purchased for commercial purposes and the District Forum was, therefore, not justified in dismissing the complaint on that ground.

WE have carefully considered the above contentions. In our view the warranty against manufacturing defect given in the present case was for one year and it came to an end on 22.1.93. This is borne out from the copy of the warranty card placed on record by the appellant himself. The explanation of the or with regard to the advertisement deserves to be accepted. In that the particular advertisement, to which Mr. Dewan has made a reference, contains the reported experience of some named customers whose battery lasted 3 to 4 years. This does not, in our view, affect a revision in the warranty period which has been specifically and precisely mentioned in the warranty card. Moreover, as stated in Condition No. 7 of the warranty card the life of the battery depends as much on the maintenance as on the functioning of the electrical system as stated in para-2 of the reply filed by the OP. How the electrical system of a particular vehicle functions varies from vehicle to vehicle. We, therefore, are of the view that the OP was not liable to replace the battery or take corrective action on the footing that the defect surfaced within the warranty period.

WE, however, find force in the contention of Mr. Dewan that no objection having been taken by the OP that the battery had been purchased for a commercial purpose the complaint should not have been dismissed on that ground. As stated above in its letter dated 1.11.93, the OP offered to supply a new battery at 50% discount, we hope that the offer was genuine and the appellant may, if so advised, avail of the same. For the foregoing reasons we are constrained to dismissed the appeal as being without merit. Ordered accordingly. A copy of this order be communicated to both the parties as well as District Forum-I. Appeal dismissed.