Date of filing : 02.07.2007.

Date of disposal : 16.11.2007.

C.C.No.48/07

Between:-

P.Rajeshwar, S/o.Narayana,

Age:22 years, Occ:Student,

H.No.5-12-194, Gajulapet,Nirmal,

Mandal:Nirmal,

Dist.Adilabad. omplainant.

/span>

//AND//

Limra Battery Bikes,

Rep.by its Proprietor,

Sami Ullahkhan, S/o.Not known,

Age:Not known, H.No.5-10-14/7,

Budhwarpet, Opp.ADCC Bank Line, Nirmal,

Mandal:Nirmal,

Dist.Adilabad.pp.Party.

Counsel for Complainant : Mr. Y.Vishnu Bhagawan.

Counsel for Opposite Party: Mr. Syed Moinuddin.

/span>

QUORUM:-

SRI.P.THIRUPATHI REDDY, M.A., L.L.B.: PRESIDENT.

SRI.C.RAMA REDDY, B.A.,: MEMBER.

FRIDAY THE 16^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2007.

-:ORDER:-/span>

Order Pronounced by President:-

This complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act 1986.

The brief facts of complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant had purchased a Yash .e. bike docile for Rs.27,500/- from Opp.Party on 09.09.2006 and the warranty period is one year and the Opp.Party issued a bill dated 09.09.2006 to the above effect. From the date of purchase of the bike from the shop of Opp.Party the battery of the bike is not at all working and it was defective.So the complainant handed over the battery to the Opp.Party for repairing or for replacement on the same day.But the Opp.Party did not return the battery till now.So the Opp.Party has committed a deficiency service for supply defective vehicle and substandard vehicle for which the complainant had suffered physically and mentally for which the complainant is entitled for damages of Rs.10,000/- along with price of vehicle amounting to Rs.27,500/- with 12% interest. Hence the complainant prayed this forum to direct the Opp.Party to return the price of the bike amounting to Rs.27,500/- with interest as the bike is defective and damages of Rs.10,000/- for committing deficiency of service.

2. The Opp.Party contested the petition and filed counter. He stated the allegations made in the complaint are not correct and the Scooter was functioning well.He also stated complainant did not implead manufacturer of the vehicle.He prayed to dismiss the petition.

3. Both Parties filed Proof Affidavits.

4. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked.No documents are filed on behalf of Opp.Party.

5. Heard both sides.Now the point for consideration is that there are groundsto allow the petition. In the force of arguments it is brought to the notice of this Forum there are some cases of failure batteries in Scooters run with Electrical battery and it is come to understanding that theyreceived the old battery with new vehicle.Admittedly the present battery is not functioning.So we feel it is a fit case to order for replacement of old battery with new battery. We also feel as a fit case to impose some costs.

6. In the result the petition is allowed.The Opp.Party is directed to replace the old battery with a new battery within period of one month from the date of receipt of this order and impose a cost of Rs.500/-.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected by us and pronounced in the Open Forum on the 16^th day of November,2007./span>

Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBER/span>PRESIDENT

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

---None-- ---None---

Exhibits Marked

/span>ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANTON BEHALF OF OPP. PARTY

Sd/- Sd/-

MEMBER /span>PRESIDENT

//Certified True Copy//

//By Order//

C/span> TP**

R/span>NT**