Telangana

Warangal

25/06

D.Brundavani - Complainant(s)

Versus

Jaya Laxmi Auto Mobiles - Opp.Party(s)

Y.Nagender

21 Aug 2006

ORDER


District Consumer Forum, Warangal
District Consumer Forum, Balasamudram,Hanmakonda
consumer case(CC) No. 25/06

D.Brundavani
D.Brundavani		 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Jaya Laxmi Auto Mobiles
Jaya Laxmi Auto Mobiles		 ...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : WARANGAL

Present:       Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,

                                                President.

 

 

                                                Sri N.J. Mohan Rao,

                                                Member

 

                                               And

 

Smt. V.J. Praveena,

                                                Member.

 

 Monday, the 05th day of June, 2008.

 

CONSUMER DISPUTE NO. 25/2006

 

Between:

 

Smt. D.Brundadevi, W/o Jayadev Gyani,

Age: about 25 years, Occ: Advocate,

R/o H.No.9-2-35, JPN Road,

Warangal.

                      … Complainant

 

AND

1. Dealer,

    M/s Jayalaxmi Automobiles,

    H.No.7-7-102, Near Alankar Theatre,

    Hanamkonda.

    

2.  Incharge Officer,

     Customer Care Department, HERO PUCH,

     10TH K.M. Stone, G.T.Road,

     Hero Nagar, P.O.Dujana-203 207            The claim against this OP

     Gautam Budg Nagar (UP)                        is dismissed as per Docket

                                                                  order dt.4-4-07.

 

3. Abai Kr Saksena, Manager-Service,

     601, International Trade Towers

     Nehru Place, New Delhi – 110 019.                                                         

… Opposite Parties

 

Counsel for the Complainant      : Sri. Y. Nagender, Advocate

Counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 3: Sri R. Sreehari Swamy,  Advocate.

 

This complaint coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following Order.

 

                                                    ORDER

Per Smt. V.J. Praveena, Member

 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant Smt. D. Brunda devi against the Opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay Rs.40,000/- towards the damages or replace the vehicle with a new vehicle and along with Rs.10,000/- towards expenditure.

 

The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainant are as follows:

 

          The complainant purchased Hero EZEE-SX vehicle from Opposite party NO.1 on 16-09-02 Engine No.WK076822, Regd.No.Ap36 K 1521 and opposite party No.1 gave one year warranty for the defect of the said vehicle.  From the date of purchase of the vehicle she is getting troubles because whenever the air is lost in the rear wheel of the vehicle, it is very difficult to change the wheel as the wheel does not insert or fitted with air.  The very purpose of using the stepany tyre is forfeited and one cannot insert the filled air into the rear wheel of the vehicle.  There is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle.  The complainant several times approached the opposite parties, but no action is initi ated so far or changed the said defect.  Vexed with the attitude of opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice.  The opposite parties gave reply denying all the facts.  The complainant gave rejoinder on 22-07-2005 but no action is initiated so far.  As such she filed the present complaint for redressal of her grievance.

 

          Opposite party No.1 filed the Written Version contending in brief as follows:

          The complainant never placed any trouble before the Opposite party No.1 till the expiry of 2nd year that means during the period of 2nd year there is no trouble.  Further there is no defect at all with the vehicle .  Every customer must know the technicality and mode how to remove and insert the wheel particularly stephney and the complainant not placed any opinion of mechanical engineer and the complainant was running the vehicle successfully.  Hence, the complaint filed by the complainant may be dismissed.

          Opposite party No.3 filed a memo adopting the Written Version of Opposite party No.1.

 

          The claim against Opposite party No.1 is dismissed as per docket order dated 4-4-07.

 

 

          The complainant in support of her claim filed her Affidavit in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-17.  On behalf of Opposite party No.1 Sri M. Mahender, and on behalf of Opposite party No.3 N.B Nair filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination but not marked any documents.

          The points for consideration:

1.Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite   

    parties?

2. To what relief?

 

          The case of the complainant is that she purchased Hero EZEE-SX vehicle from Opposite party No.1 on 16-09-2002, Engine No.WK076822 and one year warranty was given for the defect of the vehicle. From the date of purchase the complainant was facing many problems with the vehicle and when air in the rear wheel of the vehicle is lost it was very difficult to change the wheel (Stepany) as it was not inserted or fitted with the air and the air has to be removed from Stepany tyre and then only the complainant was able to insert the wheel.  She also faced the problem with the starter motor compression. When she approached the Opposite party NO.1 with the above problems for the said vehicle she was not attended properly and there was no response from Opposite party No.1.  Vexed with the attitude of the Opposite parties, the complainant got issued legal notice on 26-06-2005 and rejoinder on 22-07-2005, but in vain.  As there is no other go, she filed the present complaint for redressal of her grievance.

 

          The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant has not placed any trouble before Opposite party No.1 till the expiry of 2nd year. From the date of purchase the customer must be aware of technicality  and mode how to remove and insert the wheel particularly stephney.  The complainant has not placed any opinion of mechanical engineer to show that

there is manufacturing defect of the vehicle.  As there are no defects in the vehicle till today, the vehicle is in the possession of the complainant and it is running successfully and she has not followed the times of servicing and she herself not taken proper care for proper maintenance, and the question of granting damages an amount of Rs.44,000/- does not arise because the complainant has not followed the conditions of the company.

 

          On perusal of the record it is evident that the complainant filed    Exs.A-1 to A-17.  The complainant has faced the problem in changing the tyre of the vehicle and started motor compression and came to the conclusion that it is a defective one.  To substantiate her version she has not filed any evidence before this Forum by producing any expert evidence in the form of Affidavit of either authorized mechanic or authorized service engineer regarding defect of the vehicle.  As per record the said vehicle is still within the possession of the complainant.  As the complainant failed to substantiate her version, we are of the opinion that there are no merits in the complaint filed by the complainant.

 

          In the result there are no merits in the complaint filed by the complainant and accordingly the same is dismissed, but without costs.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, today, the 5th June, 2008).

 

                                                   Sd/-                          Sd/-            Sd/-

                                                Member                 Member       President,

                                                 District Consumer Forum, Warangal.

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

On behalf of Complainant                          On behalf of Opposite Party

 

Affidavit of complainant filed                          Affidavit of O.P.1 & 3 filed.

                                                                

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of complainant

 

  1. Ex.A-1 O/c of legal notice issued to O.Ps. dt.20-06-05
  2. Ex.A-2 Acknowledgment due.
  3. Ex.A-3 Reply from O.Ps. dt.28-6-05.
  4. Ex.A-4 Rejoinder issued to O.ps dt.22-07-05.
  5. Ex.A-5  Reply from O.Ps. dt.15-7-05.
  6. Ex.A-6 Rejoinder to reply notice dt.11-08-05
  7. Ex.A-7 Guarantee card.
  8. Ex.A-8 Cash Bill of Jaya Laxmi Automobiles.
  9. Ex.A-9 Cash invoice of Seetarama Agencies, dt.9-10-04.
  10.  Ex.A-10 xerox copy of owners manual.
  11.  Ex.A-11 Warranty Card.
  12.  Ex.A-12 Sales Certificate.
  13.  Ex.A-13 Delivery Challan-cum-Invoice,dt.16-09-02.
  14.  Ex.A-14 legal notice issued to O.Ps. dt.16-7-03.
  15.  Ex.A-15 No Due Certificate issue to complainant by O.Ps.
  16.  Ex.A-16  Form 35 Notice of Termination of an Agreement.
  17.  Ex.A-17 Owners Manual.

 

 On behalf of Opposite parties.

 

             NIL

                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                                President.