Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/93/2014

Bommisetty Venkata Seshu kumar Son of B.V. Subbaiah Hindu Aged about 65 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.S.V Technologies Represented by its Proprietor Authorised person - Opp.Party(s)

M.D.Rahimkhan

23 Oct 2017

ORDER

Date of filing       :  08-12-2014

Date of disposal  :   23-10-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

           :: NELLORE ::

                                                       

Monday, this the 23rd day of OCTOBER, 2017.

 

            Quorum: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B.., President

                           Sri K.Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member 

                          

C.C.No.93/2014        

 

Bommisetty Venkata Seshu Kumar,

S/o.B.V.Subbaiah,

Hindu, aged about 65 years,

Resident of Flat No.101,

S.Kumar Emerald,

Kondayapalem Road,

Nellore.                                                                                  …  Complainant

 

                      Vs.

                                                                            

1.S.V.Technologies,

   Represented by its proprietor/authorized person,

   Shop No.4, 1^st floor,

   Ravula Shopping Arcade,

   Opp: Madras Busustand,

   Trunk Road,

   Nellore.                          

 

2. M/s.Amara Raja Batteries Limited,

    Represented by its Managing Director,

    Regd.Office & Woirks,

    Karakambadi,

    Tirupati – 517520.                                                   … Opposite parties

 

This matter coming  before us for final hearing in the presence of                  Sri Md.,Rahimkhan, Advocate Advocate for the complainant and Sri P.N.V.Sai Kumar, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 remained absent and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

 

ORDER                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  (By Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B.., President)

 

1.     The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund Rs.15,500/- with interest @24% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e., 27-06-2013 till the date of realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages and for mental agony, distress and financial loss and  inconvenience caused to the complainant and to grant costs of Rs.5,000/-  and grant such other relief and submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

2.  The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

        The complainant submits that the opposite parties gave wide publicity about their home UPS unit and attracted by the wide publicity and assurances of opposite parties the complainant purchased one Home UPS unit of APC make model 850 VA and Amaron 850 AH battery from opposite party No.1 under invoice No.279 dated 27-06-2013 fro Rs.15,500/- for his house purpose  during power cut on the same day the opposite party No.1 personnel installed the said UPS unit in the house of the complainant.    The said UPS unit was given warranty for a period of 24 months.  While so, on the very next day of its installation i.e., 28-06-2013, the said UPS unit stopped functioning and immediately the complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1 who visited the complainant’s house and rectified the problem so saying that the said problem wi8ll not occur in future.  But after one week the same problem erupted again after complaint, the technicians inspected the unit and rectified the problem so saying that there is some manufacturing defect in the said unit.  But, surprisingly again on the next day the same problem cropped up and when informed, opposite party No.1 deputed their technician who in turn stated that said UPS unit is suffering with manufacturing defects and further stated that the company will replace the same or amount will be returned and that inspite of repeated requests and reminders the opposite parties neither replaced the UPS unit nor the amount is returned and that the complainant approached the opposite parties several times and requested either to replace the same with a new one or to refund its price.

 

3.  The complainant further submits that it is the legal and bounden duty of opposite parties to sell good quality UPS unit without any defects.  But, the opposite parties supplied defective UPS unit and also failed to rectify the problem in the said UPS unit inspite of several approaches and requests.  Though it is the duty of the opposite parties either to replace the said defective UPS unit or to return its price, the opposite parties did not choose to do the same.  The acts of the opposite parties clearly go to show their sheer negligence and deficiency in service.  So, the complainant suffered lot of mental agony, inconvenience  and also the financial loss and also the very purpose of purchasing the said UPS unit are in vain due to deficiency in service  and negligence of opposite parties.  Vexed with their attitude the complainant got issued notice dated 24-09-2014 through his counsel to opposite party No.1 and having received the same the opposite party No.1 did not choose to issue reply or even to send acknowledgement.  The complainant lost hope on the services of opposite parties.  So, the opposite parties are not only liable to refund the costs of UPS unit with interest but also liable to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Hence, the complainant submits to allow the complaint with costs.

 

4.  The opposite party No.1 filed counter and additional counter with the following averments that:-

 

     This opposite party is no way connected and liable to the complainant’s claim.  The warranty period is already lapsed in the  year, 2014, June itself and this opposite party is not answerable any more after  the warranty period and that the complainant’s claim is exorbitant and excessive in whatever manner in dealing with subject matter and this opposite party no way consent and liable to pay the complainant’s claim and the said complaint is devoid of any merits and liable to dismiss with the costs and this opposite party is going to file separate petition to send for document so as to obtain expert opinion to come to just conclusion relating to letter ‘2’ was changed as ‘3’ so as to save the warranty period and this opposite party submits that to dismiss the complaint against the opposite party No.1.

 

 

 

 

5.   The Averments of Additional Counter are as follows:-

 

       The opposite party No.1 submits that it is false that the opposite parties gave wide publicity about their home UPS unit and as attracted, the complainant purchased one Home UPS unit of APC make model 850 VA and Amaron 8540 AH battery from the opposite party No.1 under invoice No.279 dated 27-06-2013 for Rs.15,500/- for his house purpose during power cut and on the same day this opposite party No.1 personnel installed the said UPS unit in the house of the complainant  and that the said UPS unit was given warranty for a period of 24 months and  that on the very next day of its installation i.e., 28-06-2013 the said UPS unit  stopped functioning and immediately the complainant informed the same to opposite party No.1 who visited the house and rectified the problem so saying that the said problem will not occur in future and after one week, the same problem erupted again after complaint, the technicians inspected the unit and rectified the problem so saying that there is some manufacturing defect in the said unit and but surprisingly again on the next day the same problem cropped up and when informed, the opposite party No.1 deputed their technician who in turn stated that the said UPS unit is suffering with manufacturing defects and further stated that the company will replace the same or amount will be returned and inspite of repeated requests and reminders, the opposite parties neither replaced the UPS unit nor the amount is returned are all false, created, concocted and baseless and is only to harass this opposite party No.1 due to some family rivals.   It is submitted that the complainant is no other than the father of the opposite party No.1 and due to some family problems and rivals, the complainant bore grudge against this opposite party No.1 and filed this false complaint and harass the opposite parties.

    

6.    The opposite party No.1 also admitted that the complainant purchased the UPS Unit of APC make for Rs.15,500/- under invoice bearing No.279 on 27-06-2012 but not on 27-06-2013 as alleged by the complainant.  The document No.1 filed by the complainant along with the complaint is a fabricated document.  The original invoice dated 27-06-2012 was colour printed and changed the letter ‘2’ in the year as ‘3’ (2012 into 2013) to save the warranty of 24 months by the complainant and that the warranty of the said UPS was expired by 26-06-2014 itself and after the warranty the complainant filed this false complaint fabricating the year in the document No.1 i.e., invoice to cover the warranty only and as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

 7.   The opposite party No.1 further submitted that on 27-06-2013, this opposite party No.1 sold nine items to various persons from the receipts bearing No.15896.  The UPS in dispute stated supra is not there.  Where as this opposite aprty No.1 sold seven items on 27-06-2012.  Under receipts bearing Nos. from 136 to 13681.  Out of which receipt bearing No.13679 for Rs.15,500/- is related to the complainant and that the above said receipt books, the warranty of the said UPS was expired by 26-6-2014 itself and after the warranty the complainant filed this false complaint fabricating the year in the document No.1 i.e., invoice and as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini and that the other allegations that the complaiannt visited several occasions to this opposite party No.1 shop and got it rectified the defects and that the opposite parties supplied defective UPS unit is false and invented all the allegations against this opposite party No.1 for the purpose of filing this false complaint to harass the opposite parties only and that from the date of installation of UPS i.e. from 27-06-2012, no complaint was received from the complainant about the  defects in the UPS.  So, it means the said UPS was working very good.  If really there is a defect and there is a complaint during the warranty period and opposite party No.1 attended to rectify the defects as alleged, the opposite party No.1 clearly mention in the document warranty in service record.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

 

8.       The opposite party No.1 further submitted that when the allegation that the defective UPS is supplied, it is the duty of the complainant to produce the said UPS unit before the Hon’ble Forum and also to get expert  opinion for proper adjudication of the case.  But, so far, the complainant has not produced the said UPS before the Hon’ble Forum or before this opposite party No.1 and even failed to file a petition to send for the same for expert inspection and expert opinion and that from the date of installation i.e., 27-06-2012, the said UPS unit is with the complainant but not with this opposite parties.  So, it clearly proves that there is no defect in the UPS and the complainant allegations are all false and invented for getting illegal benefit from the hands of the Hon’ble Forum and so, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone and that this opposite party No.1 is no way connected and liable to the complainants claim as already stated supra.  The warranty period is already expired on 26-06-2014 itself and the UPS unit alleged as defective has not produced till now and hence this opposite party No.1 is not answerable any more after the warranty period and submits for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 

  9.   On behalf of the complainant, chief affidavit of complainant is received as   

         the evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1 to A4 are marked.

 

   10.  On behalf of the opposite parties, the chief affidavit of opposite party

        No.1 received as the evidence of RW1 and on behalf of the opposite parties

        Exs.B1 to B6 documents were marked.

 

   11.  Written arguments on behalf of the complainant filed.

 

   12.   Written arguments on behalf of the opposite parties not filed.

 

    13.  Arguments on behalf of both parties heard.

 

 

 

 

  14.  Perused the written arguments on behalf of the complainant.

 

  15.  Now, the points for consideration are:

        1) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant against

            the opposite parties 1 and 2 under section 12 of Consumer

            Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service against the opposite

            party is maintainable?

       2)  To what relief, the complainant is entitled?

 

16. POINT NO.1:  The learned counsel for the complainant submits that the complainant purchased one home UPS unit APC make model 850 VA and Amaron 850 AH battery from the opposite party No.1 under invoice No.279 dated 27-06-2013 for Rs.15,500/- for his house purpose and on the same day, the opposite party No.1  personnel installed the said UPS unit in the house of the complainant and on the next day of its installation i.e., 28-06-2013 the said UPS  stopped functioning and then the complainant informed  the same to the opposite party No.1, who visited the complainant’s house rectified the problem but again after one week the said unit was not working and  again after the complaint, the technicians inspected the unit and rectified the problem and they are saying that there is some manufacturing defect in the said unit and surprisingly again on the next day the same problem cropped up and then the opposite party  No.1 deputed their technician who in turn stated that the company will replace the same or amount will be returned and inspite of issuing of legal notice dated 24-09-2014, as the opposite parties failed to rectify the mistake or replace the unit,  hence, the complaint filed this complaint for refund of Rs.15,500/- with interest @ 24% p.a., from the date of purchase i.e., from the 27-06-2013 and to award damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of the complaint and submits to allow  the complaint with costs.

 

17.    On the other hand, the counsel for the opposite party No.1 submits by relying upon Exs.B1 to B6, the complainant purchased the said unit on 27-06-2012 only but not on 27-06-2013 as stated by the complainant and as the complaint was filed beyond the warranty period i.e., from 27-06-2012, the complainant filed complaint against the opposite parties is not maintainable and submits for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

 

18.   In view of the arguments submitted by the counsels for the both parties and as seen from the facts of the case, the contention of the complainant is that the complainant purchased an UPS unit on 27-06-2013 for Rs.15,500/- under Ex.A1 invoice dated 27-06-2013. The opposite party No.1 admitted  the said fact and filed Ex.B6 invoice dated 27-06-2012 but as the complainant purchased an UPS unit on 27-06-2013, hence, the complaint filed by the complainant is the beyond the period of warranty hence the complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties is not maintainable.

 

19.     In view of the above said facts and as seen from the additional counter filed by the opposite party No.1 at page No.2 and the additional counter filed by the opposite party No.1 states as follows:

    “ It is submitted that the complainant is no other than the father of the opposite party No.1 and due to some family problems and rivals, the complainant bore grudge against this opposite party No.1 and filed this false complaint and harass the opposite parties.”

        It is also admitted that the complainant purchased the UPS Unit of APC make for Rs.15,500/- under invoice bearing No.279 on 27-06-2012 but not on 27-06-2013 as alleged by the complainant.  The document No.1 filed by the complainant along with the complaint is a fabricated document.  The original invoice dated 27-06-2012 was colour printed and changed the letter ‘2’ in the year as ‘3’ (2012 into 2013) to save the warranty of 24 months by the complainant and that the warranty of the said UPS was expired by 26-06-2014 itself and after the warranty the complainant filed this false complaint fabricating the year in the document No.1 i.e., invoice to cover the warranty only and as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

20.      In view of the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party No.1, we are of the opinion that the father cannot be proceed against his son by filing a false case against for a small amount of Rs.15,500/- by creating a false document against his son, who is opposite party No.1.    In these circumstances, the contention of the opposite party No.1  that the complainant manipulated Ex.A1 invoice as 27-06-2013 instead of 27-06-2012 cannot be accepted,  in view of the facts of the case and relationship between the complainant and the opposite party No.1 as the complainant is a father of the opposite party No.1.  In

                  Geetajethani and others Vs. Airport

                Authority of India and others

        2004 CTJ 1048(NC)(CP) =2004(3)CPJ106(NC)

 

       Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission held that:

 

        “ The Consumer Protection Act does not provide for application of the evidence Act or Civil Procedure Code.  The Consumer dispute is to be decided on the yardstick of reasonable probability on the basis of the facts brought on record by the parties.

 

       Following the above decision, we are of the opinion that the consumer dispute has to be decided on the yardstick of reasonable probability on the basis of the facts brought on record by the parties.  In view of the facts of the case  and  the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party No.1, we are of the opinion that the complainant  who is the father of the opposite party No.1 will not go to extent of creating a false document to claim a small amount of Rs.15,500/- from his son.  Considering the probabilities of case, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant is to be allowed.  Though, the opposite party No.1 filed Exs.B1 to B6, but in view of the probabilities of the case and relationship of the both parties, we are of the opinion that there is no convincing evidence on record.  To say that complainant created Ex.A1. By relying above the decision and on the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed.  In view of the above discussion, we answer this point in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties.

 

22.POINT NO.2:  In view of our answering on point No.1 in favour of the complainant and against the opposite parties 1 and 2. The complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 and 2 has to be allowed.

         In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to refund a sum of Rs.15,500/- (Rupees fifteen thousand five hundred only) with interest @18%p.a. on Rs.15,500/- from the date of Ex.A1 i.e., from  27-06-2013 to till the date of payment.

        The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant and the opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the expenses of the complaint to the complainant.

          The complainant is directed to return the UPS Unit of APC make model 850 VA and Amaron 850 AH battery to the opposite parties at the time of payment.

      The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to comply the order within          30 days from the date of communication of the order.

 

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the   23rd   day of OCTOBER, 2017.    

                      Sd/-                                                                     Sd/-

                 MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

 

  APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

PW1

01-08-2015

:

Bommisetty Venkata Seshu Kumar, S/o.B.V.Subbaiah, Hindu, aged about 65 years, resident of Flat No.101, S.Kumar Emerald, Kondayapalem Road, Nellore.

 

 

 

 

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

 

RW1

28-06-2016

:

Bommisetty Deppak Kumar, S/o.Venkata Seshu Kumar, Hindu, aged about 36 years, Proprietor/Authorised person, S.V.Technologies situated at shop No.4, 1st floor, Ravula Shopping Arcade, Opp: Madras Bus Stand, Trunk Road, Nellore.

                                                                        

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

Ex.A1	27-06-2013	:	Invoice No.279 issued by  the opposite party No.1 in favour of the complainant for Rs.15,500/- .
Ex.A2	-		Warranty card issued by the 2nd opposite party in favour of the complainant.
Ex.A3	24-09-2014		Legal notice issued by the counsel for the complainant to opposite party No.1 along with R.P.receipt.
Ex.A4	29-09-2014		Acknowledgement of opposite party No.1.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES                       

 

Ex.B1	27-06-2012	:	Photostat copies of receipts sold  seven in nos.
Ex.B2	27-06-2013	:	Photostat copies of  receipts  sold nine in nos.
Ex.B3	14-06-2012 TO 30-06-2012	:	Original receipts  bearing Nos. from13601 to 13700 book  of the 1st opposite party.
Ex.B4	13-06-2013 To 28-06-2013	:	Original receipts bearing Nos. from15801 to 15900 book  of the 1st opposite party.
Ex.B5	27-06-2012	:	Photostat copy of receipt bearing no.13679 issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.B6	27-06-2012	:	Office copy of invoice bearing No.279 issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party.

 

                 

                                                                           Id/-   

                                                                     PRESIDENT

 

Copies to:

 

1. Sri Md.Rahimkhan and Sri Sk.Abdul Samath, Advocates, Nellore.

 

2. Sri P.N.V.Sai Kumar and Sri P.HAri Babu, Advocates, Opp: Nizam Hospital, Aravinda Nagar, Nellore – 3.

 

3.  M/s.Amara Raja Batteries Limited,Represented by its Managing Director,  Regd.Office & Woirks,  Karakambadi, Tirupati – 517520

 

 Date when order copies were issued: