Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

cc/304/2012

Sigireddy Muni Swami - Complainant(s)

Versus

OM MAA Automobiles - Opp.Party(s)

K. Kameswara Rao

09 Jan 2015

ORDER

 Reg.of the Complaint:25-09-2012

                                                                                                                                 Date of Order:09-01-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II

AT VISAKHAPATNAM

                   Present:

1.Sri H.ANANDHA RAO, M.A., L.L.B.,

       President

2.Sri C.V.RAO, M.A., B.L.,

                                             Male Member

3.Smt.K.SAROJA, M.A., B.L.,

       Lady Member

                                            

 

FRIDAY, THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.304/2012

 

BETWEEN:

SAGIREDDY MUNI SWAMI S/O S.BANNAYYA,

HINDU, AGED 68 YEARS, R/AT NEAR DEGREE COLLEGE,

CHODAVARAM TOWN, VISAKHAPATNAM.

…COMPLAINANT

AND:

1.THE PROPRIETOR, OM MAA AUTOMOBILES,

SHOP NO.101, SIMHACHALAM BUS STOP,

VISAKHAPATNAM-29.

2.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, AVON CYCLES LTD.,

BEHIND, G.T.ROAD, LUDINANA, PUNJAB.

…OPPOSITE PARTIES

This case coming on 23-12-2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI K.KAMESWARA RAO, Advocate for the Complainant, and of SRI PAILA SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate for the 1^st OP, and the 2^nd OP, being set exparte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

ORDER

 (As per SMT.K.SAROJA, Honourable Lady Member on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant approached the 1^st Opposite Party and purchased AVON E LITE BIKE, for an amount of Rs.25,675/- on 15-12-2011. The 1^st OP issued cash bill and gave one year warranty. On 14-05-2012, the complainant did not start the vehicle, then he approached the 1^st Opposite Party and handed over it to the 1^st Opposite Party. The 1^st Opposite Party collected Rs.500/- for additional expenses and delivered the said vehicle. Again, some problem arose in the said vehicle. Then, the complainant approached the 1^st OP and handed over it to the 1^st OP for rectification on 20-07-2012 in spite of many requests made by the complainant, the OPs did not rectify the problem  in the said vehicle. Then, the complainant issued legal notice on 27-08-2012 to the OPs. 1^st OP issued a reply notice to the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

a.       Directing the Opposite Parties to replace the new vehicle in place of the old defective vehicle.

b.       Directing  the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony, physical stress and strain of the complainant along with the expenses incurred by the complainant for bringing the vehicle to Visakhapatnam.

c.       for the costs of the complaint and

d.       For such other relief/reliefs as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.       The 2^nd OP did not appear before this Forum, hence it was set exparte and  remained exparte.

3.       The 1^st OP filed Vakalat and did not file any counter in spite of several adjournments given to 1^st OP to file counter and documents, if any. But, they failed to do so.

4.       At the time of enquiry, the complainant filed an affidavit as well as written arguments to support his contention. Exhibits A1 to A5 are marked for the Complainant.  In view of the Written Arguments filed by the Complainant, treated as heard on behalf of the complainant.

5.       Exhibit A1 is the Invoice, dated 15-12-2011, Exhibit A2 is the User Manual, Exhibit A3, Replacement Claim under warranty dated 20-07-2012, Exhibit A4 is the Legal notice dated 27-08-2012 and Exhibit A5 is the Reply Notice dated 04-09-2012.

6.       Exhibit A1 reveals that the complainant purchased E-bike on 15-12-2011 for an amount of Rs.25,675/- from the 1^st OP. Exhibit A3 reveals that the complainant handed over his vehicle to the dealer of the E-bike on 20-07-2012 and the technician of the OP noted the problem in the said bike as replacement of censor  and motor check up.

7.       The point that would arise for determination is:

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OPs? if so, Whether the Complainant is entitled to the   reliefs asked for?

8.       After careful perusal of the case record, this forum finds that after purchase of 5 months, the said bike was given troubles. According to Exhibit A3, the OP technician noted under warranty slip brief description of failure; replacement of sensor and motor check up. But, till now the problems are   not rectified by the OPs. Moreover, the OP filed its vakalat and kept silent to file counter and documents to show that there is no deficiency of service on their part.

9.       Exhibit A5 reveals that the 1^st OP issued a Registered Reply Lawyer’s Notice dated 4-9-2012 stating that they had rectified the said vehicle and take the vehicle  immediately by paying Rs.7,200/- with service charges of Rs.250/-. This document shows that though the OP gave a reply to complainant’s notice but they did not prove their case to show that the vehicle was repaired earlier.  They did not file any proof before this forum as they rectified the  defects in the said vehicle.  So, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant suffered a lot of mental agony due to the acts of the OPs from 20-07-2012 to till today. The defects found in the said vehicle  by the complainant are within the warranty period. Hence, the complainant is entitled to cost of the vehicle with interest, some compensation and costs too.

10.     In the result, the Complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite Parties, to pay an amount of Rs.25,675/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand, six hundred and seventy five only) with 9% p.a., from 20-07-2012 to till the date of actual realization, and to pay a compensation of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) and costs of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one Thousand only)  to the Complainant. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).

 Time for compliance, one month from the date of this order.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, on this the 9^th day of January, 2015.

 

  Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                         Sd/-

M.MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT                                                L.MEMBER  

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A-1	15-12-2011	Invoice	Original
A-2		User Manual	Original
A-3	20-07-2012	Replacement claim under warranty	Photostat copy
A-4	27-08-2012	Legal Notice	Office Copy
A-5	04-09-2012	Reply Notice	Original

 

Exhibits Marked for the OPs     -nil-

 

  Sd/-                                                     Sd/-                                         Sd/-

M.MEMBER                                                     PRESIDENT                                                L.MEMBER