Date of filing:15.7.2013
Date of Disposal:6.6.2014
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II::
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: SRI A. M. L. NARASIMHA RAO, B.SC., B. L., PRESIDENT
SMT N. TRIPURA SUNDARI, B. COM., B. L., MEMBER
FRIDAY, THE 6th DAY OF JUNE, 2014.
C.C.No.129 OF 2013.
Between :
Smt G.Sravani, W/o Nagaraju, Hindu, R/o House No.1-98, Bantumilli Village,Krishna District.
….. Complainant.
And
- M/s BSA Motors Limited, rep., by its Authorized Signatory, Post Box No.5,
M.T.H.Road, Ambattung, Chennai – 600 053.
- M/s Vijaya Motors, Rep., by its Authorized Signatory, Office at Door No.32-10-E/1, Beside Haribandi sivaji Hospital, Madhu Gardens, Moghalrajpuram, Vijayawada. 520 010.
…..Opposite Parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 28.5.2014 in the presence of V.Vani, Counsel for complainant and opposite party No.1 appearing in person and opposite party No.2 remained absent and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:
O R D E R
(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Smt N. Tripura Sundari)
This complaint is filed under Sect5ion 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The averments of the complaint are in brief:
1. The complainant purchased an electronic bike manufactured by the 1st opposite party under the caption BSA Street Rider from the 2nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.36,693/- on 1.5.2012 for her professional purpose i.e., working as home tutor. After three months of its purchase a defect was arose in the battery of the vehicle. The complainant informed the said fact to the 2nd opposite party and requested either to rectify the defect in the battery or to replace the same as it is within the warranty period. The 2nd opposite party failed to rectify the defect in the battery. Inspite of repeated requests made by the complainant the 2nd opposite party advise her to bring the battery to send the same to the 1st opposite party. Accordingly the complainant returned the battery on 1.10.2012 to replace the same with new one. Subsequently the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party several times but they failed to replace the battery stating that they have not received the battery from the 1st opposite party till date. The complainant purchased the vehicle for the purpose to attend home tuitions. Due to defect in the battery of her vehicle the complainant has to engage an auto by incurred Rs.100/- per day to attend her regular work and kept the vehicle idle which resulted in deterioration of life time of the vehicle. Due to the acts of the opposite parties the complainant suffered untold mental agony besides monetary loss which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence both the opposite parties are responsible to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint against the opposite parties praying the Forum to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.21,900/- towards compensation for loss sustained by the complainant to pay Rs.25,000/-towards compensation for mental agony and to pay further damages at the rate of Rs.100/- per day till actual delivery of new battery and also costs.
2. The 2nd opposite party remained absent and the 1st opposite party filed its version.
The version of the 1st opposite party is in brief:
The 1st opposite party denied all the allegations of the complaint and submitted that the 1st opposite party is manufacturing E-scooters by using standard spares which are one of the best in the world. Further before assembling E-scooters, well qualified engineers, technicians and experts are checking the spares in opposite parties’ laboratory and before reaching the showroom they thoroughly checking the vehicle by their experts then only allowing to send the vehicle to the showrooms. Therefore no manufacturing defect will occur within the warranty period. The complainant has purchased the E-scooter in the name of BSA Street Rider 250 W on 1.5.2012. The opposite party has handed over the all relevant documents such as owner’s manual, tools kit to the complainant on the same day. As per warranty terms and conditions the vehicle has to undergo to all periodical services stipulated in the owner’s manual. Due to certain unavoidable circumstances the dealer (the 2nd opposite party) has closed the business without any information and upon receipt of the customer complaint the 1st opposite party arranged services to the customers of this dealer. On advise of Hon’ble Forum the 1st opposite party had replaced new battery digital speedo meter, battery box, front shock absorber and rear grab rail (which is not coming under warranty norms) on a gesture of goodwill. The current demand of customer to replace the rear brake shoe and rear motor bearing is not genuine and justified. As such the 1st opposite party shall attend to this job on chargeable basis and free labour charges. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party towards the complainant and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
3. On behalf of the complainant she gave her affidavit and got marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 and on behalf of the 1st opposite party Mr.G.Saravanan Deputy Manager Customer care of the 1st opposite party gave his affidavit and got marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.3.
4. Heard and perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in
not rectifying the defects of the vehicle of the complainant?
2. If so is the complainant entitled for any relief?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINTS 1 AND 2:-
6. On perusing the material on hand the complainant purchased BSA Street Rider from 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.36,693/- under Ex.A.1 invoice dated 1.5.2012. After using the said bike the complainant noticed some defect in the battery and made a complaint with the 2nd opposite party under Ex.A.2 warranty claim dated 1.10.2012with remarks of battery and the charger are not working. On the advise of the 2nd opposite party she handed over the same to the 2nd opposite party to replace the same with new ones. But on repeated visits to the show room of the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party failed to replace the battery to the vehicle. Therefore she got issued a legal notice Ex.A.3 dated 26.3.2013 to the opposite parties through her advocate demanding the opposite parties to replace the new battery in place of defect battery to her vehicle within a week of that notice or otherwise she will proceed to the District Forum for her redressal. The 1st opposite party received the same and the notice of the 2nd opposite party returned unserved. The complainant filed the above C.C. in this Forum and the 2nd opposite party called absent and the 1st opposite party was present in this forum and agreed to set the new battery and to rectify all the defects of the vehicle. The 1st opposite party replaced the battery, battery box and charger in the presence of engineer under Ex.B.1 dated 11.1.2014. Again the complainant reported to the Forum that the vehicle is not working in good condition. The 1st opposite party again replaced the speedo meter, front shock absorber and rear grab rail to the vehicle of the complainant. The complainant is not satisfied for those replacements and requests the Forum to appoint a commissioner to inspect the working condition of the vehicle in presence of the 1st opposite party. The Forum appointed an advocate commissioner to inspect the vehicle with the assistance of an experienced mechanic and also allow the mechanic of the 1st opposite party to explain the working condition of the vehicle and to submit the report on 30.4.2014. The advocate-commissioner executed the warrant on 28.4.2014 in the presence of both parties and submitted his report on 30.4.2014 to this Forum stating that the husband of the complainant reported some defects that (1) The battery of the vehicle is charging upto 24 hours, but the battery is not fully charged. (2) The vehicle speed is very low and there is no pick up. (3) The speedo meter and lighting is not working. (4) The rear wheel tire is buzzing and expanded. (5) The vehicle sewing harm, colour is removing and rusted. (6) The vehicle rear shock absorber is not proper. (7) The battery box locks are not given to them. (8) The warranty card was not given to them. The mechanic of the 1st opposite party gave replies to the above allegations respectively that (1) After one year the dealer will provide a new battery if it is not working properly. (2) Due to battery low-voltage problem the vehicle speed is very low. (3) The meter assembly is not properly working. (4) The rear tire should be replaced on charges as the warranty period is over. (5) The vehicle was rusted due to kept it idle without running since long time. (6) The vehicles light weight due to that the shock absorber is smooth. (7) The dealer has to give them but the 1st opposite party gave the top box and bottom and handles to the owner. (8) After on year, warranty card cannot be issued as the warranty was give only one year. The advocate commissioner opinioned that the vehicle is not good condition as it was kept idle due to battery trouble. Due to that reason the remaining parts of the vehicle were also damaged.
7. On observing above all these facts we, the Forum opinioned that as the battery of the vehicle is not in working condition, the complainant hand over the same, to the 2nd opposite party to replace it. The dealer closed his business and went away and no response from him. As the new battery is not replaced the vehicle is not in working condition. After filing the complaint, the 1st opposite party attended to the Forum and on the advise of the forum, the 1st opposite party fixed necessary parts to the vehicle. But the complainant is not satisfied with the rectified defects. Due to delay in rectifying the defects of the battery the vehicle was kept idle and that worsened the working condition of vehicle. Therefore we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and they are liable to compensate for the same. The complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties. Accordingly these points are answered.
POINT No.3:-
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part and the 1st opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees only) for mental agony and causing inconvenience to the complainant and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Two thousand rupees only) as costs. Time for compliance one month. If the 1st opposite party fails to pay the award amount in due time it carries interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of order till realization. Rest of the claims of the complainant are rejected.
Typewritten by Stenographer K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 6th day of June, 2014.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For the complainant: For the opposite parties:-
P.W.1 G.Sravani D.W.1 ,G.Saravanan
Complainant Deputy Manager ,
(by affidavit) of the 1st opposite party,
(by affidavit)
DOCUMENTS MARKED
On behalf of the Complainant:
Ex.A.1 01.05.2012 Photocopy of tax invoice issued by the 1st opposite party.
Ex.A.2 . . Photocopy of warranty claim.
Ex.A.3 26.03.2013 Office copy of legal notice.
Ex.A.4 . Postal acknowledgement.
Ex.A.5 . . unserved returned cover.
For the opposite parties:-
Ex.B.1 . . Service report.
Ex.B.2 25.02.2014 Job card.
Ex.B.3 25.02.2014 Customer Satisfaction letter.
PRESIDENT
