Incident Details:
Product: Exide Inva Tubular IT900
Battery Serial Number: A1B4F903251
Date of Purchase:[protected]
PMOPG Appeal Ref No: DOCAF/E/A/26/0002348
Full Description of the Incident:
I am bringing to light a severe safety hazard, extreme service negligence, and a completely illogical warranty rejection by Exide Industries regarding my Exide IT900 battery, which is currently well within its 48-month free replacement warranty.
Recently, the battery suffered a catastrophic internal rupture. Instead of treating this as a severe safety emergency, Exide delayed the physical inspection by a staggering 6 days. Subsequently, my warranty claim was arbitrarily rejected without the provision of ANY technical diagnostic report.
The company cited a "local HUPS" and a "dry run" as the reasons for rejection. However, the physical reality of the incident completely dismantles their fabricated excuses:
1. The "Dry Run" Contradiction:
Exide claims the battery was subjected to a "dry run" (operated without sufficient acid/electrolyte). Ironically, when the battery ruptured, it flooded the floor of my home with a massive volume of highly corrosive acid. How can a supposedly "dry" battery leak such a massive amount of acid? This glaring physical contradiction proves that their "technical assessment" is a completely fake, copy-pasted excuse designed solely to avoid warranty fulfillment.
2. The "Local HUPS" Excuse:
My setup utilizes a standard, branded IC-controlled automatic inverter, not a "local HUPS". Furthermore, the battery terminals are perfectly intact with no severe sulfation or burning, which further disproves their theories of operational negligence.
It is highly evident that the service center is using baseless, contradictory excuses to illegally escape their warranty liabilities. I have escalated this unfair trade practice via a formal administrative grievance with the Ministry of Consumer Affairs (PMOPG).
Desirable Resolution:
I request a complete, free replacement of this defective battery as per the standard 48-month warranty terms, along with a formal written technical report justifying their initial, illogical rejection.
Was this information helpful?
Post your Comment