BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri.P.V.Nageswara Rao,M.A.,LL.M., President(FAC)

And

Smt. C.Preethi,  M.A.LL.B., Lady Member

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc.,M.Phil., Male Member

Thursday  the 10^th  day of September, 2009

C.C. 60/09

 Between:

M. Zaheer Hussain Baig,

S/o. M. Mahaboob Ali Baig,

R/o. H.No. 46/154A12,

Budhavarpeta,

Kurnool-518002.                                  …Complainant

-Vs-

M/s . M.S.K. Motors ,

Represented by its Proprietor ,

Shop No. 16,17 ,

D.No. 40/319 , R.M. K. Plaza,

Opp. Zilla Parishad Office,

R.S.Road,

Kurnool-518001.                           …Opposite Party

                        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. G. Chalapathi Rao, Advocate, for the complainant , and Sri. N. Srinivasa Reddy , Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. P.V.Nageswara Rao,President (FAC)

C.C.60/09

1.     Complaint filed under section 11 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:-  The complainant purchased  one “E-Go Electrical Bike” on 14-07-2008 from opposite party  for Rs.38,875/- and invoice No. 15. It was a “V/S Model” of 800 watts of the colour white and orange  bearing Motor No. 1923 and  Chasis (F) NO. 70038 with battery operation. The opposite party  issued a booklet with maintenance  and instructions  of the electrical motor cycle  along with operation  to the complainant. It was sold that  it was manufactured  and designed  that it would need minimum  maintenance it would  over come the current  defects i.e,  short working life of batteries and short driving  mileage. It was fitted with the batteries  for double the  performance of the other vehicles with one year warranty .

3.     The opposite party  was authorized  distributor  of the vehicles  manufactured  by Wuxi Louts Electric Bike Manufacturing Company Cha Quino Industry town.  In the 3^rd week  of January 2009  the batteries  fitted with the vehicle failed suddenly  and the complainant  brought it  to the notice of the opposite party who inspected and informed that the life of battery was over and advised to replace with new batteries. Since there was warranty period for the battery , the complainant  requested  the opposite party  to replace with new batteries . It was refused in spite of  the warranty . The opposite party  was bound  to replace  with new batteries . Therefore it was gross  negligence on the part of the opposite party . The complainant got issued a notice on 04-02-2009 requesting the opposite party to replace with new batteries. There was no response. Hence the complaint was filed directing the opposite party to replace with new batteries  and pay damages of Rs.50,000/- and costs.

4.     The opposite party filed written version admitting the purchase  of E.Go Electrical Bike by the complainant  from him. The warranty period was one year and if the complainant  would mis-use  the battery or the bike, the opposite party had to receive the  complaint and conduct  the service. But the defused  batteries  were not replaced  with new one. It was noted in the manual. The complainant missed the battery by putting  re-charge of the battery . If re-charge was kept  more than  prescribed  norms the battery would not work. Due to  negligence  the battery was recharged for more than the fixed  norms. Therefore was no negligence on  the part of the opposite party. The opposite party was ready to provide service to the battery  and rectify the defect. The question  of replacing batteries  would not arise because the opposite party was ready to provide  service and rectify defect. Thus , the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

5.     On the basis of the above pleadings the points for consideration are

(1) Whether there is any negligence or deficiency of service on part of  the opposite party .

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for ?

(iii) To what relief ?

6.     On behalf of the complainant  Ex.A1 to  A4 were marked. No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite party

7.     Point No. 1 & 2 :- It was an admitted fact that the complainant purchased one E-Go Electrical Bike on 14-07-2008 for Rs.38,875/- with Model V/S of 800 Watts  with colour white and orange  with vehicle motor  No. 1923 and Chasis No. 70038 and invoice No. 15 under Ex.A1. It was operated with batteries . The complainant  used the vehicle in working condition till January 2009 ie., for 6 months. Later the complainant found that  the vehicle was not working properly and the batteries  failed to work. He purchased the vehicle from opposite party . The complainant  approached the opposite party  to replace the batteries  with new  batteries for proper working condition . As the opposite party  failed to respond the  complainant got issued notice on 04-02-2009. The office copy of notice was Ex.A2. The complainant filed Ex.A3 operation and maintenance and instructions of electrical motor cycle. Ex.A4 was the printed broacher   of the electric  bike. In the written version the opposite party  expressed that they were ready to rectify  the defects in the battery without replacement with new batteries.  The new batteries  would be replaced by the company itself. The manufacturing  company was not a party to the complainant. But there was no proof that the complainant  approached the opposite party  for rectification of the defects in the battery. It was the duty of the complainant to place the vehicle or handed over the batteries  to the opposite party to rectify  the battery defect. It was not done so. It was not known how much time the complainant  had put the batteries  for re-charge i.e, whether  he exceeded the  limits mentioned  in the booklet  for re-charge or not exceeded the limits. It would be known only after the batteries would be checked properly. Even after the complainant got issued notice under Ex.A2, the opposite party would respond  and send  the reply that they  were ready to rectify the defect. But they were silent. Thus , there is negligence on the part of the opposite party .

8.            Point No. 3: - In the result , the complaint is allowed directing the complainant to produce the batteries  of the vehicle to the respondent  within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order who inturn conduct  to repairs to the battery and make it in working condition  and pay Rs.1,000/- towards compensation  and Rs.500/- towards cost  within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order .

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 10^th day of September, 2009.

        Sd/-                          Sd/-                          Sd/-

LADY MEMBER              PRESIDENT FAC)     MALE MEMBER

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :Nil             For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

         List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:    Nil

           Sd/-                                       Sd/-                              Sd/-

LADY MEMBER               PRESIDENT (FAC)      MALE MEMBER           

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on                :

Copy was dispatched on          :