BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 27th day of February, 2006
C.C.No.5/2006
Dr.R.V.Prasad Reddy,
S/o Narayana Reddy,
Aged about 40 years,
Plot No.19, Aditya nagar, A.Camp,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
V/s
M/s KUN UNITED CAR TRAX PRIVATE LIMITED,
Represented by its Proprietor,
#51/15-A-65A, NH7, Near Auto Nagar,
Kurnool – 518 003. . . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on 24.02.2006 for arguments in the presence of Sri C.Joga Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri N.Nanda Kishore, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This case of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking direction on the opposite party to refund Rs.14,174/- and Rs.768/- collected towards repairs, Rs.2,600/- incurred for repairs at Hyderabad, Rs.7,500/- towards the rent of the car engaged by complainant for 15 days, Rs.50,000/- towards inconvenience suffered during the period of repairs, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony suffered and Rs.25,000/- for the negligent services the opposite party rendered, and interest and other reliefs which the exigencies of the case demand.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that Santro Car bearing No.AP21 G 5679 purchased from the opposite party gave leak from the gear box consequent to hit of stone to gear box and the opposite party has collected from complainant an amount of Rs.14,174/- towards its repair issuing bill No. 726 dated 27-10-2004 and after its repair delivered back the car to the complainant but within a day the same trouble repeated to the car and said defect was not rectified inspite of several of its approaches paying a further sum of Rs.768/- vide bill No.912 dated 31-1-2005 and its attendance by the opposite party, and ultimately the opposite party turned adamant for rectification of said defect. Hence, the complaint is constrained to get its repair attended by Sri. Jayalakshmi Auto Motives Pvt. Limited dealer of Hyundai in road No.14 of Banjara Hills, Hyderabad at a cost of Rs.13,393/- paid to the said dealer and incurred other incidental expenses of Rs.2,600/- towards petrol and other expenses. During the said period of repairs at Hyderabad which took for 15 days the complainant was constrained to engage a taxi car at a rent of Rs.500/- per day. The opposite party has not displayed prudent care in attending and rectification of the complained gear box defect of the car and there by lent deficiency of in his services and also carelessly replied to the notice dated 4-6-2005 of the complainant.
3. In pursuance of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party has caused its appearance through counsel and filed its written version along with documents mentioned therein denying the cause of action of the complainant and any deficiency of service on its part and there by any of its liability to the claim of the complainant.
4. The written version of the opposite party alleges that the complainant was advised for change of gear box housing as it’s examination revealed multiple cracks and any amount of repair would be a temporary without any much use and on the request of the complainant only temporary repair was done to the satisfaction of the complainant and ultimately the complainant got the said replacement done with the opposite party on 20-10-2004 and there after made extensive journeys without any complaint and hence, the alleged reoccurrence of the problem is false. The alleged payment of amount of Rs.768/- in January 2005 has no relevancy to the defect alleged by the complainant as it pertains to replacement of ‘Flunge Key” and removal of ‘bend’ for the shifter-rod which damaged due to misuse of gears. It disputes the any necessity of the alleged service to the vehicle of the complainant by Sri. Jayalakshmi Auto Motive Pvt. Limited, Hyderabad who is not authorized dealer of Kun Hyundai Cars and there by any of its liability to the alleged consequent expenditure claimed by the complainant and so seeks the dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any alleged deficiency of service of the opposite party and there by any of the laters liability to the claim made in the complaint.
6. The complainant except enclosing to the complaint the documents 1 to 5 listed there in did not filed any sworn affidavit of himself or other in support of his case and documents inspite of several adjournments on and from 15-2-2006 and 22-2-2006 and not even on 24-2-2006, in reiteration of its case and documents and any rebuttal of the denial written version averments of the opposite party and the documents that were enclosed there with.
7. Hence, the case of the complainant and the documents enclosed there with is not crossing the stage of mere allegation averments and in the light of the denial version of opposite party, for want of their proof by necessary approved legal means, not attaining the status of evidence for their appreciation in favour of complainant holding any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and there by any of the laters liability to the complainant’s claim.
8. Consequently, the case of the complainant as not substantiated by cogent mode mean it, is remaining devoid of merit and force and so it is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 27th day of January, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party :Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite party: Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to :-
1. Sri C.Joga Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri N.Nanda Kishore, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
