O R D E R
(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)
1. The complainant sought Rs, 67,210 being the cost of inverter with battery together with interest and for compensation and physical strain and mental agony.
2 The case of the complaint in brief is that she purchased Luminous UPS LB + VX SQ/W -875 model inverter along with AMETO battery from the 2nd opposite party for Rs. 16,300/- on 26.04.2013. It worked for few days properly and it was burnt on 08.05.2013. On next day the complainant informed the same to 2nd opposite party who along with technician came to the house and fixed a small inverter along with a small battery of less capacity in the place of burnt one and told her he would get the burnt inverter repaired and would fix the same within 2 days and took away the burnt inverter with battery. It is also her version on 19.05.2013 the 2nd opposite party came to her house, took away the small inverter along with battery on the ground they required for another purpose and promised he would fix the new inverter within few days but he failed to do so. Inspite of her several approaches the opposite party did not replace for the defective equipment and she also issued lawyer’s notice to both the opposite parties who received the same and 2nd opposite party issued reply with untenable allegations. Thus she sought the above said amount.
3 The 1st opposite party remained exparte. The 2n opposite party filed its counter denying the material allegations in the complaint and further according to them after satisfying herself the complainant purchased inverter. She came along with one Avasarala Ravi Kumar and purchased inverter and after satisfying with warranty conditions they purchased the said item. The complainant herself got installed in the house. It is also their case 15 days later the said Ravi Kumar approached them and informed that the inverter was burnt. Then he went and checked and found it was burnt due to negligence of the complainant and due to heavy connections connected to the inverter. They informed the same to the complainant and replaced the burnt inverter with new one. Thus there is no deficiency of service on their part.
4 Further it is their case the battery was in working condition and only inverter was burnt and the battery was never given to them. Though the inverter was replaced, the complainant demanded refund of purchase money. It is also their case the complainant informed them she sold away the inverter to one S.K. Reddy, Reporter of Surya Paper as she was need of money and she sold the same for Rs. 10,000/-. They came to know there are disputes between the complainant and Ravi Kumar. Having admitted she sold away the inverter, she filed a false criminal case against Avasarala Ravi Kumar and 2nd opposite party. After enquiry the Police found the complaint was false. Thus the complainant suppressed the above facts and according to them there is no deficiency of service on their part.
5 Now the points for determination are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the amounts sought by her?
6 Point No.1: To buttress her contention the complainant filed her chief affidavit and exhibited 5 documents Exs. A1 to A5 which are warranty registration form along with bill for Rs. 16,300/-, warranty card of Ameto battery, office copy of lawyer’s notice, acknowledgments of opposite parties and reply notice issued by 2nd opposite party.
7 As against this evidence the 2nd opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked Ex.B1 copy of the complaint lodged by the complainant against Ravi Kumar and against 2nd opposite party, Ex.B2 copy of sale letter given by Avasarala Ravi Kumar to Reporter of Surya Paper.
8 It is not in dispute the complainant purchased inverter from 2nd opposite party. It is also not in dispute the same was burnt. The 2nd opposite party contends that they replaced the old burnt inverter with new one and the complainant sold away the inverter to one S.K. Reddy, Reporter of Surya Paper as she was in need of money. It is no doubt true the 2nd opposite party has not produced any material showing his replacing old inverter with new one. But Ex.B1 copy of Police report given by the complainant would indicate that infact the said Ravi Kumar who is a friend of Geddam Lokanath who is the son of maternal uncle of the complainant took away the inverter and also Xerox copy of report given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police together with a sum of Rs. 3250/- from the complainant promising to return this amount along with cost of the inverter. The report further indicates both this Ravi Kumar and 2nd opposite party colluded and took away the old inverter and battery installed in her house. Thus complaining she sought action against both the said Ravi Kumar and 2nd opposite party.
9 Ex.B2 would indicate the said Ravi Kumar sold the inverter to S.K. Reddy, Reporter of Surya Paper for sum of Rs. 10,000/-. The complainant has not challenged the genuiness of these two documents exhibited by 2nd opposite party. The version of 2nd opposite party in the counter with regard to her selling away the inverter for Rs. 10,000/- and her filing complaint against Avasarala Ravi Kumar and against 2nd opposite party and later the Police finding complaint was false is not disputed by the complainant by filing any rejoinder.
10 On other hand in the written arguments submitted by the complainant it is urged the 2nd opposite party with malafide intention colluded with Ravi Kumar took away the battery and sold the same. Aggrieved by their act the complainant lodged a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and after perusing the complaint the Police advised her to approach the Forum. This part of arguments doesn’t find place in the pleadings of the complainant in the complaint. Thus her lodging the Police complaint is not disputed by the complainant wherein also as stated supra Ravikumar a friend of son of her maternal uncle took away the inverter along with some amount promising to return the same.
11 Thus if at all it attracts penal provisions under IPC and by suppressing this fact the complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands. Thus in these circumstances the material on the record would indicate there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this point is answered accordingly against the complainant.
12 Point No.2: In view of the findings rendered under point No.1 the complainant is not entitled for any amount on account of deficiency of service. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
13. In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.
Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 31st day of March, 2015
Sd/-XXXX Sd/-XXXX
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant: Sri Ambati Syama Sundari
For opposite parties : Sri Arun Kumar, Lakshmi Tharuni Electricals
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A1 Warranty registration form along with bill for Rs. 16,300/-
Ex.A2 Warranty card of Ameto battery
Ex.A3 Office copy of lawyer’s notice
Ex.A4 Acknowledgments of opposite parties
Ex.A5 Reply notice issued by 2nd opposite party
For opposite parties:
Ex.B1 Copy of the complaint lodged by the complainant against Ravi Kumar and against 2nd opposite party
Ex.B2 Copy of sale letter given by Avasarala Ravi Kumar to Reporter of Surya Paper
Sd/-xxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx
MEMBER PRESIDENT
