th June 2009th floor, C.C. No. 21 of 20093 business transfer agreement dt. 14-12-2005 with BPL Ltd., and Sanyo BPL Pvt. Ltd., which does not shift the liabilities of the BPL Ltd., pertaining to this product. 4. The R3 filed its counter and stated orally that R2 has no liability in the present C.C. The R3 has repaired the said washing machine of the complainant. The R3 stated that on 25-1-2007 he has repaired the washing machine of the complainant and collected Rs. 2,250/- and the remaining balance amount of Rs. 1,500/- was collected by him on 26-1-2007. The complainant after ascertaining the repairs conducted by R3 has paid the servicing charges. After one year the complainant sent a legal notice to the respondents. The R3 stated that no company or any servicing center will not give warranty to the spare parts because all the spare parts are running with the electricity if any voltage variation is there the spare parts may damage. The complainant has given the complaint that the washing machine was totally dead and the main PCB problem and the body of the washing machine was rust and damaged. The bill which was issued for Rs. 2,250/- clearly mentioned that they have changed PCB and tinkering was done to the washing machine and paining also done to the washing machine. The complainant has enjoyed the repaired washing machine for one year and after that he has issued legal notice for unnecessary harassment. 5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 were marked. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. i. Whether the complainant is entitled to receive the amount which was paid towards repair charges from the respondents? ii. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents? iii. To what relief? C.C. No. 21 of 20094 7. Point Nos. 1 & 2 Heard both sides and perused the records available with the forum and forum made the following order. The complainant purchased one BPL washing machine from R2 few years back. The complainant has not mentioned the date or the year of purchase of the washing machine. He stated that it become unserviceable and approached R2. The R2 collected Rs. 2,250/- and issued bill Ex. A1 dt. 25-1-2007. After that the respondent failed to make washing machine serviceable so he called R3 to repair the said washing machine and R3 also collected Rs. 1,500/- towards repair charges and issued a receipt dt. 26-1-2007, which was marked as Ex. A2. The complainant alleged that both the respondents collected amounts from him but failed to repair the washing machine properly. So he has issued a legal notice dt. 17-3-2008, which was marked as Ex. A3. After receiving the said notice the R1 sent reply that Sanyo BPL Pvt. Ltd., joint venture company started about 2 years also and washing machine which was purchased by the complainant was few years back is not manufactured or marketed by Sanyo BPL Pvt. Ltd., The company is nothing to do with M/s Bhargav Electronics, with respect to the product manufactured / marketed by BPL Ltd., Sanyo BPL Pvt. Ltd., do not have any authorized service provider at Kadapa city in the name of M/s Anand Electronics and appliance and hence, they have nothing to do with them. 8. R1 filed a detailed counter and stated that the washing machine in question was purchased by the complainant from BPL Ltd., BPL Ltd., is a separate distinct company with its own management distinct from answering respondents. The liability of said BPL Ltd., are not the liabilities of the present respondent. The respondents clearly stated that Sanyo BPL Pvt. Ltd., had purchased the colour T.V business from BPL Pvt. Ltd., vide business transfer agreement dt. 14-12-2005. However, the liabilities of the said BPL Ltd., pertaining to T.V. sold by BPL Ltd., remained the liability of the said company. The answering the respondents Sanyo C.C. No. 21 of 20095 BPL Ltd., has no nexus with the said liability. The complainant’s counsel filed one judgment Veeraswami and Ramaprasad Rao Vs. M/s Spencer and Co. Ltd., Madras. But the judgement which was filed by the complainant’s counsel is not applicable to the present case. It is clear that the R1 has purchased the T.V. business from BPL Pvt. Ltd., but not the entire business from the BPL Pvt. Ltd., The R3 also stated that it is true that he has collected Rs. 2,250/- and Rs. 1,500/- from the complainant towards repair charges from the complainant. But the complainant has enjoyed the washing machine upto one year and after that only he has issued legal notice to the respondents and no service center will give warranty to the spare parts. After seeing Ex. A1 & A2 it is clear that the complainant has paid the amounts to the R2 & r3. the complainant has enjoyed the washing machine nearly one year and after the he has issued Ex. A3, dt. 17-3-2008 that the respondents has to pay the repairing charges. By perusing exhibits it is clear that R2 and R3 has repaired the said washing machine and after satisfying with the repair the complainant has paid the amounts to the respondents. The complainant stated that he has purchased washing machine few years back. He has not mentioned the date or year of the said washing machine. To get spare parts for such old electronic goods is very difficult for any dealer or any service mechanics. We see no merits in the present case. The complainant has enjoyed the repaired washing machine upto one year and filed the present C.C alleging deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. We are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the respondents and they are not liable to pay any costs or compensation to the complainant. 9. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 29 MEMBER PRESIDENT C.C. No. 21 of 2009th June 20096 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE Witnesses examined. For Complainant : NIL For Respondent : NIL Exhibits marked for Complainant : - Ex. A1 X/c of bill issued by Bhargav Electronics, dt. 25-1-2007. Ex. A2 X/c of receipt issued by Anand Electronics & Appliances, dt. 26-1-2007. Ex. A3 X/c of legal notice from complainant’s advocate to respondents, dt. 17-3-2008. Ex. A4 X/c of reply notice from DGM Customer care to complainant’s counsel, dt. 25-3-2008. Exhibits marked for Respondents: - --- NIL --- MEMBER PRESIDENT Copy to :- 1) Sri C. Subba Reddy, Advocate, 2) The Managing Director, Sanyo BPL Pvt. Ltd., 4 B-Wing, Maruthi Infotech Centre, Amarjyothi Layout, Intermediate Ring road, Bangalore. 3) Proprietor, Bhargav Electronics, Cole complex, Christian Lane, Kadapa city. 4) The proprietor, Anand Electronics & Appliances Service Centre, 3/115-6 Christian Lage, Opp. Bhargav Electronics, Kadapa City. 1) Copy was made ready on : 2) Copy was dispatched on : 3) Copy of delivered to parties : B.V.P. - - - C.C. No. 21 of 2009th floor, CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 21 / 2009 Pragathi Nursing Home, Rep. by its Dr. B. Ramachandraiah, S/o Subba Reddy, aged about 53 years, Hindu, Practicing as Doctor, Pragathi Nursing Home , Residing D.No. 1/334 (3) Marutinagar, Kadapa city. ….. Complainant. Vs. 1) The Managing Director, Sanyo BPL Pvt. Ltd., 4 B-Wing, Maruthi Infotech Centre, Amarjyothi Layout, Intermediate Ring road, Bangalore. 2) Proprietor, Bhargav Electronics, Cole complex, Christian Lane, Kadapa city. 3) The proprietor, Anand Electronics & Appliances Service Centre, 3/115-6 Christian Lage, Opp. Bhargav Electronics, Kadapa City. ….. Respondents. This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 26-6-2009 in the presence of Sri C. Subba Reddy, Advocate for complainant and R1 & R3 appeared as in person and R2 called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:- O R D E R (Per Smt. B. Durga Kumari, Member), 1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to the respondents t o pay Rs. 3,750/- along with interest, Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the complaint. 2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant purchased one BPL washing machine from R2 few years back and the same was became unserviceable. The complainant approached the R2 for repairs of the said washing machine. On 25-1-2007 R2 collected Rs. 2,250/- from the complainant and issued bill No. 179, dt. 25-1-2007. The complainant stated that R2 failed to make it serviceable, than he called R3 for repairing of the said washing machine and R3 charged Rs. 1,500/- towards repair charges and he issued a receipt for Rs. 1,500/- dt. 26-1-2007. The complainant stated that both the respondents failed to repair the 2 said washing machine they simply collected amount from him and stated that they will make the washing machine serviceable after few days with the help of another efficient technician. On several demands made by the complainant the R2 stated that it beyond their capacity. So he cannot repair the said washing machine. The complainant further stated that he is ready to bear the expenses to get the washing machine repaired and informed the same to R2. But R2 stated that it is not possible for him to get the item repaired by the company also. The complainant stated that the R2 collected Rs. 2,250/- and R3 also collected Rs. 1,500/- and failed to repair the washing machine. He alleged deficiency of service on the part of the respondents. The complainant issued legal notice to the respondents on 17-3-2008 demanding the respondents 1 to 3 to refund the amount collected by R2 & R3. The respondents 2 & 3 failed to give any reply and R1 give evasive reply on 25-3-2008. The complainant has no other option, hence, filed the complaint. 3. The R1 filed a counter stating that the washing machine in question was purchased by the complainant from BPL Ltd., The BPL Ltd., is a separate and distinct company with its own management distinct from the answering respondent. The liability of the said BPL Ltd., are not the liabilities of the present respondent. The R1 further stated that Sanyo BPL Pvt Ltd., Japan and BPL Ltd., on the other hand the BPL Ltd., is a separate and distinct corporate entity incorporated under the companies Act. The said BPL Ltd., and the answering respondent Sanyo BPL Pvt. Ltd., are distinct corporate entities. The answering respondent Sanyo BPL Pvt. Ltd., had purchased colour TV business from BPL Ltd., vide business transfer agreement dt. 14-12-2005. However, the liabilities of the said BPL Ltd., pertaining to T.V sold by BPL Ltd., remained the liability of the said company. The answering respondent Sanyo BPL Pvt Ltd., has no nexus with the said liability. The R1 also filed the C.C. No. 21 of 2009 DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA PRESENT SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A., B.L., MEMBER Monday, 29
......................B. Durga Kumari
......................Sri.S.A.Khader Basha | | 
