Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/54/2017

Y.Dhanalakshmi, W/o Y.Babu Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Win India Solutions, rep. by its Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

A.Sudarsana Babu

08 Aug 2018

ORDER

Filing Date: 10.10.2017

Order Date:08.08.2018

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.54/2017

 

 

Between

 

 

Y.Dhanalakshmi,

W/o. Y.Babu Rao,

Hindu, aged about 48 years,

Flat No.501, Sri Vishnu Residency,

Thanapalle Road,

Tiruchanoor village & post,

Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

M/s.Win India Solutions,

Rep. by its Proprietor,

D.No.19-12-532, Bairagipatteda,

Near Indian Bank,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.                                                                              …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 19.07.18 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.A.Sudarsana Babu, counsel for complainant, and Sri.A.Suresh, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section –12(1) of C.P.Act 1986, seeking direction to opposite party, to rectify the defect or replace the lift or to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- being the cost with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of its purchase i.e. 30.05.2016 till realization, and directing to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and mental agony suffered by the complainant, and also directing to pay the costs of the complaint.  

            2. The complaint averments are as follows:-  The complainant is the absolute owner of Sri Vishnu Residency Apartment with stilt + 4 upper floors situated at Tiruchanoor, and she preferred to have lift purely meant for the inmates to have access to the upper floors. The opposite party approached the complainant having come to know about her intention to have lift in the apartment and impressed on her about their services to provide lift. Accordingly on 30.05.2016 SS cabin 5 persons capacity with hair line finished and having special feature of auto rescue device lift has been purchased vide invoice No.176 from the opposite party. The amount was paid by the husband of the complainant by name Babu Rao. Hence, the opposite party raised the bill in the name of Babu Rao and also gave letter dt:25.07.2016 along with warranty certificate. The lift was erected, but within a short span of 3 months, the buttons and lock of the lift started giving trouble. In the event of failure of power supply, the lift will stop at the near opening without abruptly stopping in the middle, as auto rescue device is installed in the lift. But that feature also failed to function. Inspite of complainant’s request to get rectify the defects or to replace the lift if rectification is not possible, the opposite party turned deaf ear and postponed the same on one pretext or the other. The inmates faced inconvenience due to non-functioning of lift and it amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. She caused a legal notice dt:10.07.2017 to opposite party and having received the same on 11.07.2017, the opposite party neither complied the demand of the complainant nor gave reply. Hence, the complainant was forced to file this complaint.

            3.  The opposite party filed the written version denying the allegations in the complaint and stated that complainant is not a competent or proper party to file the complaint. There was no transaction between the complainant and opposite party. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not a competent person to issue legal notice to the opposite party. She is called upon to prove that she is the absolute owner of Sri Vishnu Residency Apartment containing stilt + 4 upper floors. The complainant is also called upon to prove that the opposite party approached her and made her to believe that they would provide lift of best quality. It is denied that within a short span of 3 months buttons as well as lock of the lift started giving trouble and further auto rescue device also failed. It is denied that complainant made repeated requests to opposite party to rectify the defects or to replace the lift and that they were postponing the issue on one pretext or the other. It is denied that due to deficiency of service on their part, the complainant as well as inmates of the flats were put to inconvenience and suffered. Infact the opposite party and its technical persons inspected the lift and found that it is in proper working condition. The auto rescue device did not function as lizard fell on that part of power supply board in the lift and died affecting the functioning of the lift and for this type of failure, warranty is not covered and the same was intimated to the complainant. It is also informed to the complainant that if she is ready to bear the cost of the said spare part, the opposite party is ready to rectify the defect. The question of replacing of entire lift does not arise. The opposite party is only an agent, but not Indian Elevator Company. Infact the warranty period also expired. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed, as there are no merits.

            4.  The complainant filed chief evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. A resident of the Sri Vishnu Residency Apartment filed affidavit as PW-2 in support of PW-1 case. On behalf of the opposite party RW-1 filed evidence affidavit and Ex.B1 was marked.

            5.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint?

            6.  Point:-  Ex.A1 is tax invoice in the name of Babu Rao dt:30.05.2016, which shows that lift was purchased for Rs.4,00,000/-. Ex.A2 is letter addressed to Babu Rao on 25.07.016 by the opposite party stating that the lift facility has been handed-over through formal letter and would be continue to complete the finishing works in couple of days. The elevator details are enclosed along with Ex.A2 letter. It is specifically mentioned in the elevator details that Auto Rescue Device, which is a special feature provided in the lift. Ex.A3 is warranty certificate for a period of one year from 25.07.2016 to 24.07.2017. The same was issued by the opposite party. Ex.A4 is the legal notice dt:10.07.2017 issued by complainant’s counsel alleging that within a short span of 3 months the lift started giving trouble and the special device i.e. auto rescue device also failed and that the opposite party did not replace the lift or rectify the defects in the lift, which caused inconvenience to complainant and inmates of the apartment. Ex.A5 is acknowledgement of opposite party for receiving original of Ex.A4. Ex.A6 is agreement entered by complainant with Surya Elevator Services with regard to the lift maintenance. There is no dispute about Exs.A1, A2 and A6. It is the argument of the complainant counsel that Ex.A3 is silent about the parts which are covered under warranty and the parts which are not covered under the warranty, and therefore the contention of opposite party that due to fall of lizard on the power supply board of the lift, the lift started giving trouble and that in such type of cases warranty is not covered cannot be accepted. The counsel further argued that Ex.B1 which is photo cannot be taken into consideration since there is no proof that the photo pertains to the lift in question and further the photo is not taken in the presence of inmates of the apartment. It is further submitted that since the opposite party do not come forward to rectify the defect or to replace the lift, the complainant got the lift repaired through another company and now it is functioning but without auto rescue device. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(d) of C.P.Act. It is no doubt true that the bills were raised in the name of Babu Rao for placing order and for purchasing of lift. It is not disputed that the complainant is the wife of said Babu Rao. According to complainant she is the owner of the apartment containing 4 floors. PW-2 one of the inmates of Sri Vishnu Residency Apartment deposes that the complainant also resides in one of the flats in Sri Vishnu Residency Apartment and she made request to opposite party several times to rectify the lift problem. Further Ex.A6 clearly shows that complainant had entered into an agreement with Surya Elevator Services with regard to repairs of the lift. It clearly shows that complainant is one of the inmates of Sri Vishnu Residency Apartment and she is referred as owner of Sri Vishnu Residency Apartment. The circuit board which is a key for the special feature of the lift was taken away by the opposite party, but thereafter they did not turn-up. As they are fed-up with opposite party’s inaction, the complainant approached Surya Elevator Services and they rectified the defects and made the lift functional but without the special feature i.e. auto rescue device. There is no evidence placed before this Forum by the opposite party to show that the affidavit filed by PW-2 is false. When once it is proved that PW-1 is one of the inmates of the Sri Vishnu Residency Apartment and she is the wife of Mr.Babu Rao, the contention of opposite party that complainant has nothing to do with Sri Vishnu Residency Apartment and that she is not a consumer cannot be accepted. It may quite natural that invoice was raised in the name of Babu Rao, husband of the complainant since he paid the money. Ex.A3 warranty certificate simply mention the start date and end date of warranty and there is no mention that only for particular aspects warranty is covered and for certain aspects it is not. Another contention of opposite party is that warranty period had expired before complainant requested the opposite party to rectify the defects, but the said contention is false, in view of the fact that complainant got issued legal notice on 10.07.2017 i.e. 14 days earlier to the expiry of warranty period. The opposite party also did not give any reply to the said notice having received the same under Ex.A5 on the very next day. Hence on perusal of the documentary evidence and affidavits filed by both sides and hearing the arguments, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in not repairing the lift and installing auto rescue device. Accordingly we are inclined to allow this complaint.

            7.  In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of purchase i.e. 30.05.2016 till realization or in the alternative to replace the lift with auto rescue device, and also to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony to the inmates of the apartment and further to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The time for compliance is 8 weeks. Failing to comply, the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.                                   

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 8^th day of August, 2018.

 

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                                 

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

  PW-1: Y. Dhanalakshmi (Chief Affidavit filed).

  PW-2: Dhananjaya Babu (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Rafi (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Tax Invoice of Win India Solutions for Rs.4,00,000/-,            Dt: 30.05.2016. Vide Sl.No.176 issued by Opposite Party.
	True copy of Specifications of the Elevator along with Letter regarding Handover of Elevator related documentation. Dt: 25.07.2016.
	True copy of Warranty Certificate issued by Win India Solutions, Tirupati. Warranty valid from Dt: 25.07.2016 to 24.07.2017.
	Legal Notice. Dt:10.07.2017.
	Acknowledgement. Dt: 11.07.2017.
	Self attested copy of Agreement for Elevator Maintenance along with Photograph in original. Dt: 02.09.2017.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Positive Photo of Power supply board shows the mark of the lizard.

 

 

 

                                                                                                                        Sd/-       

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

   

      // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

       

     

   Copies to:- 1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.