Date of filing: 24.1.2013.

Date of disposal: 19.06.2013.

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

SRI S. SREERAM, B.COM., B.A., B.L., MEMBER

WEDNESDAY, THE 19

C.C.No.19 of 2013

TH DAY OF JUNE, 2013

Between:

Pasumarthi Venkata Subrahmanyam, S/o Late Krishna Murthy, Hindu, 42 years, R/o

Jupudi Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Krishna District.

….. Complainant

.

M/s Varun Motors, Rep., by its Authorized Signatory, D.No.39-2-25, Pitchaiah Street,

Labbipet, Vijayawada – 10.

.. … Opposite Party.

This complaint coming on before the Forum for final hearing on 12.6.2013, in the presence Sri K.Kishore Kumar, Advocate for complainant; and Sri I.Venkateswara Rao,

Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material available on record, this Forum delivers the following:

 O R D E R

(Delivered by Hon’ble Member Sri S.Sreeram)

This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite party to rectify the defect of the vehicle bearing No.AP 16 BJ 7751 and return it to him, to pay Rs.10,800/- towards compensation for deficiency of service and mental agony and for other reliefs.

1. The brief averments of the complaint are as follows:

That the complainant purchased a motor cycle Bajaj Discover 135 CC bearing No. AP 16 BJ 7751 from the opposite party believing the assurances made by the opposite party that the said motor cycle had good profile in the market. But the said motor cycle is not properly working for which number of times the complainant approached the opposite party for rectification of defect. But the defect was not rectified in spite of huge amounts spent by the complainant. The opposite party customer care personnels/mechanics are giving evasive replies without rectifying the defect. While so, on 15.11.2012 the complainant produced the vehicle with the opposite party work shop and paid Rs.1,000/- vide receipt No.102018, dt.15.11.2012 as advance. But the opposite party did not rectify the defect and collected Rs.4,821/- from the complainant by exchanging the original parts. The complainant got issued a legal notice dt.8.12.2012 to the opposite party, for which the opposite party issued a reply notice dt.13.12.2012 with false allegations. The complainant after receipt of reply notice got issued rejoinder notice dt.24.12.2012, but of no use. Hence, the complaint.

2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite party. The opposite party filed its version denying the material allegations made in the complaint. It is further contended that the complainant purchased the vehicle in the year 2008 and used the same since then and due to his improper usage, invariably some problems will crept and they rectified the same. It is further contended that on 15.11.2012 the complainant produced the vehicle with some repairs and they got delivered the same on 20.11.2012. Again he produced the vehicle on 22.11.2012 by complaining a new problem of mis-firing and on that a job card was opened and informed that the vehicle required replacement of electrical component by name CDI and they rectified the complaint and informed the complainant by phone on 11.12.2012 to take the vehicle by paying the cost of component. But the complainant without taking the vehicle got issued a legal notice on 8.12.2012, for which they gave suitable reply on 13.12.2012. It is further contended that the complainant with a view to blackmail them and to get the vehicle delivered without paying the amount, got issued the notices with an oblique motive and finally prayed to dismiss the compliant.

3. The complainant filed his affidavit reiterating the material averments of his complaint and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10. The Work Manager of opposite party filed affidavit, but no documents marked.

4. Heard both sides and perused the record.

5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:

i) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not rectifying the defect in the motor cycle of the complainant?

ii) If so is the complainant entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

POINT NO.1:-

6. On perusing the material on hand (complaint, affidavit and documents), there is no dispute with regard to purchasing of motor cycle from the opposite party by the complainant and the ownership of complainant. Ex.A1 photocopy of certificate of registration discloses the same. The case of the complainant is that from the date of purchasing the motor cycle, it required repairs and the opposite party personnel are giving evasive replies as and when he produced the vehicle for repairs and that he spent huge amounts for repairs. But in that regard, no material is placed by complainant in the form of documentary evidence. Further it is the case of complainant that, on 15.11.2012 he produced the vehicle before the opposite party for repairs and paid Rs.1,000/- as advance under Ex.A2 receipt and on 20.11.2012 he paid the remaining balance of Rs.3,971/- under Ex.A3 receipt.

Ex.A6 Bill dt.20.11.2012 clearly reveals that the motor cycle of the complainant was got repaired at opposite party service centre and an amount of Rs.4,971/- (which includes the payment under Ex.A2 and Ex.A3) was paid by the complainant. Even according to the complainant and opposite party also, the vehicle was delivered to complainant on 20.11.2012 after service of same. 7. The grievance of the complainant is that, though the opposite party collected Rs.4,821/- failed to rectify the defect. But the complaint averments do not disclose anything about again handing over the said vehicle to opposite party on 22-11-2012. Ex.A4 job card issued by opposite party discloses that the vehicle was again produced on 22-11-2012. The opposite party is also not disputing the said fact. In this regard, the contention of opposite party is that, at the time of taking the vehicle for repair, they informed that the vehicle required the replacement of electrical component by name CDI, which is not readily available and that they have placed the order with company and got the defect repaired on 10-12-2012 and informed the same to the complainant on 11-12-2012 with a request to take the delivery of vehicle by paying the cost of component. The said fact was also mentioned in the reply legal notice dt.13-12-2012 and the same was received by complainant. But it seems that the complainant has not taken the delivery of vehicle even after receipt of reply notice dt.13-12-2012, but on the other hand got issued rejoinder notice dt.24-12-2012. When the opposite party through its reply informed the complainant to take delivery of vehicle, it is the duty of the complainant to take delivery of the same by paying the cost of component. Further he waited more than two months after receiving reply notice before filing the complaint in this Forum. In view of the above circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party as they informed about the rectification of defect through reply notice. Further there is no time gap between the taking of vehicle for repairs and rectification of defect by opposite party. As such the complainant is bound to take delivery of vehicle by paying the cost of component.

8. With regard to the cost of component, the opposite party has not mentioned its cost in its reply notice or version. Further the complainant has not filed any warranty card to show that the warranty period of the vehicle is not lapsed. On the other hand, it is the contention of opposite party that there is no warranty for electrical components and the warranty period of vehicle also has lapsed. As such, the complainant is liable to pay the cost of component to opposite party before taking delivery of same.

POINT No.2:-

9. In the result, the complainant is directed to take delivery of vehicle from the opposite party after paying the cost of component C.D.I after ascertaining cost of component from the opposite party. The opposite party is also directed to hand over the vehicle to complainant under due acknowledgment. Time for compliance of order is one month from the date of receipt of this order. The other claims of the complainant are hereby dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to the costs and compensation.

Typewritten by Steno K.Sivaram Prasad, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 19

PRESIDENT                                                                                                        MEMBER                                                                                      MEMBER

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For the complainant:                                                                                                           For the opposite party:

P.W.1 P.V.Subrahmanyam                                                                                                 D.W.1 D.Krishna Kumar,

Complainant Works Manager, (by affidavit).                                                                     (by affidavit)

Documents marked

On behalf of the complainant:

Ex.A1 . . Photocopy of Certificate of Registration.

Ex.A.2 15.11.2012 Photocopy of receipt issued by the opposite party for Rs.1,000/-.

Ex.A.3 20.11.2012 Photocopy of receipt issued by the opposite party for Rs.3,971/-.

Ex.A.4 22.11.2012 Photocopy of job card issued by service centre of opposite party.

Ex.A.5 20.11.2012 Photocopy of receipt issued by the opposite party for Rs.850/-.

Ex.A.6 20.11.2012 Photocopy of VAT invoice (Credit bill).

Ex.A.7 08.12.2012 Office copy of legal notice.

Ex.A.8 13.12.2012 Reply notice.

Ex.A.9 24.12.2012 Office copy of rejoinder notice.

Ex.A.10 . . Postal acknowledgement.

On behalf of the opposite party:

Nil.

PRESIDENT

And