Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/78/2012

Purriddyy Nagendra Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMCO Batteries Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Golagana Appa Rao

21 Jul 2015

ORDER

  Reg. of the Complaint:20-03-2012                                                                                                                        

Date of Order:21-07-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                        Present:  

1.Sri H.ANANDA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                                       Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                                      

 

WEDNESDAY, THE 21^st DAY OF JULY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.78/2012

 

BETWEEN:

Purriddy Nagendra Rao s/o China Pydayya,
Hindu, Aged 50 Years, Gopalapatnam Main Road,

Visakhapatnam.

…Complainant

AND:

1.AMCO Batteries Limited,

Auto battery marketing division,

Addision Building, 1^st floor,

803, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002.

2.Lorven Battery Agencies,

(Exclusive AMCO – Dealers)

D.No.32-26-43/A & B, 75ft road,

Opp. Dolphin Hotel, Visakhapatnam-4.

3.Venkata Vijaya Motors, P.M.L., Complex,

Vizianagaram Road, Kothavalasa-535 183.

4.Siva Sankar motors, Main Road, Gajuwaka,

Visakhapatnam-530 026.

…Opposite Parties

This case coming on 07-07-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of  SRI PAKALA ASHOK KUMAR, Advocate for the Complainant, and of SRI G.T.V.MALLESWARA RAO, Advocate for the 3^rd and 4^th Opposite Parties, and 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties were being set exparte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

ORDER

 (As per SMT.K.SAROJA, Honourable Lady Member on behalf of the Bench)

1. The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had purchased Hero Honda Motor Cycle, CD Delux bearing No.AP31 BE 8808  on 11-02-2010 from the 3^rd Opposite party by paying Rs.43,000/-.  The 1^st OP supplied Amco Battery along with the motorcycle, battery serial number and code is 012690 AB 2.5 L-C.  The Opposite party gave warranty with a condition that to check the battery for every month with the authorized dealer. The complainant approached for checking up the battery on two occasions. On 21-09-2010, the complainant approached the 2^nd OP for checking up the battery condition as the vehicle horn was not blowing. The 2^nd OP informed the complainant with the battery + 5th cell having complaint.  Hence, the complainant’s battery was sent to Chennai i.e., the 1^st Opposite Party who is the manufactuer of the said battery. In psite of many reuests made by the complainant, the OPs did not return the battery to the complainant till now. Hence, this complaint.

1. To return battery with with new one
2. To pay Rs.15,000/- for compensation for causing mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant; and
3. To direct the Oppostie Parties to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2. The 1^st & 2^nd Opposite Party did not appear before this Forum and hence they were set exparte and remained exparte.

Counter filed by the 3^rd Opposite Party  and adoption memo filed by the 4^th Opposite party.

The 3^rd Opposite party strongly resisted the claim of the complainant, by contending as can be seen from their counter, the 3^rd OP who sold the bike Hero Honda with Battery to the complainant. The 3^rd OP never made any inconvenience to the petitioner/complainant. So, this OP is not liable to pay any compensation asked by the complainant. The complaint is not maintenable both on law and on facts.

 

3. At the time of enquiry, both parties filed affdiavits as well as the written arguments to support their contentions. Exhibit A1 to A7 are marked for the complainant. No documents are marked for the Opposite parties. Heard both sdies.

Exhibit A1 is the Receipt issued by 3^rd OP, dated 11-02-2010, Exhibit A2 is the Ownership record and data, dated 20-02-2010, Exhibit A3 is the Warrant Card issued by 1^st OP, dated 20-02-2010, Exhibit A4 is the Job receipt of batter issued by OP No.2 dated 21-09-2010, Exhibit A5 is the Certificate of Registration issued by RTO, dated 20-02-2010, Exhibit A6 is the Office copy of the Regd., Lawyer’s notice, dated 22-09-2010 and Exhibit A7 is the Acknowledgements served to OP No.1 to 4, dated 23-09-2010.

4.      The fact shown from Exhibit A3 shows that the complainant purchased Amco Battery for his Hero Honda Motor Cycle from the 3^rd OP at Kovattavalasa Vizianagram District. Exhibnit A4 reveals that the complainant approached the 2^nd OP who is the dealer of AMCO batteries dated 29-09-2010 for recharging of the said battery. The complaint was noted by the 2^nd OP is that +5 Cell complaint in the said battery, according to Exhibit A4.

5.       The point that would arise for determination is:

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs? If so, Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?

6.      After careful perusal of the case record, this forum finds that the complainant approached the 2^nd OP for regular check up of his battery as suggested by the 3^rd OP on 21-09-2010. The compaliant approached the 2^nd OP as the horn is not blowing and requested the 2^nd OP to rectify the same. The 2^nd OP issued a job receipt i.e., Exhibit A4.  According to Exhibit A4, + 5 cell having complaint. It reveals that there is some defect in the said battery as the complainant was prudcahsed in the month of February 2010. The problem arised on 21-09-2010, the problem arised within the warranty period of said battery. Though the 2^nd OP informed to the complainant that + 5 cell was having complaint and it is sent to Chennai  i.e., the 1^st OP who is the manufactuer of the said batteries, OPs did not return it to the complainant. More over the 1^st and 2^nd OP did not appear before this forum even though they received notices, kept silent. It is the bounden duty of the 1^st OP i.e., the manufactuer of the said battery to retify the defects if possible or replace it with a new one to the complainant. In the present complaint, the 1^st OP did not do so, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the first OP.  The 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th OPs are only proposed parties to the proceedings. They are no way concerned with the complaint. So, the 1^st OP who is manufacter of the said battery is held liable. Hence, the complainant is entitled to new battery or its costs, some compensation and costs too.

7.       In the result, this complaint is allowed, directing the 1^st Opposite Party only to replace the defective battery with  a new one or in the alternative to pay cost of the battery, a compensation of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) and costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant. Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

However, the case against the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th Opposite parties are dimissed. No costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 21^st day of July, 2015.                                              

Sd/-                                                                Sd/-                                        Sd/-   

MALE MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT                       LADY MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:                                                                       

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A-1	11-02-2010	Receipt issued by OP No.3	Photocopy
A-2	20-02-2010	Ownership Record and date	Photocopy
A-3	20-02-2010	Warranty Card issued by OP No.1	Photocopy
A-4	21-02-2010	Job receipt of battery issued by OP No.2	Photocopy
A-5	20-02-2010	Certificate of registration issued by RTO	Photocopy
A-6	22-09-2010	Office copy of the Regd. Lawer’s Notice	Office copy
A-7	23-09-2010	Acknowledgements served to OPs No.1 to 4	Original

 

Exhibits Marked on behalf of the OPs:    -nil-

Sd/-                                                                    Sd/-                                              Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                      PRESIDENT                       LADY MEMBER