This complaint coming up before us for hearing on                      02-11-11 in the presence of Sri P. Rajendra Prasad, advocate for complainant and opposite parties 1 to 4 remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.35,600/- paid by complainant towards costs of the vehicle, for a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony caused to the complainant, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards transport expenses incurred by complainant for carrying the vehicle from Narasaraopet to Guntur and for costs.

2.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          1^st opposite party is the sub dealer of 2^nd opposite party and opposite parties 3 and 4 are manufacturers of EKO vehicles under the name and style of Ultra Motors.   1^st opposite party had showroom in Narasaraopet town.   Complainant purchased EKO vehicle from                  2^nd  opposite party through 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by opposite parties 3 and 4 under invoice dated 06-07-10 for Rs.27,000/- and also purchased batteries under cash bill dated                     07-07-10 for Rs.8,600/- for running the vehicle.   Two months after purchase the vehicle was frequently troubling and required repairs.   On 02-09-10 the vehicle was handed over to 1^st opposite party for repairs and 1^st opposite party found that the controller of the vehicle was damaged and replaced on 14-09-10 and also replaced some main components as they were found sub standard and handed over the vehicle to the complainant on 07-10-10.   The 1^st opposite party gave undertaking that the company will replace all the components including batteries during warranty period of one year and the undertaking letter was signed by Manager of 1^st opposite party.   After 07-10-10 1^st opposite party closed his showroom in Narasaraopet town as the EKO vehicles manufactured by 4^th opposite party are not performing properly and due to often complaints from the complainants.  In spite of replacing new components the vehicle of the complainant was often requiring repairs and complainant was forced to approach 2^nd opposite party for getting repairs done.  As the vehicle is frequently requiring repairs, complainant was forced to take the vehicle in an auto trolley from Narasaraopet to Guntur to get it repaired and thereby incurring more expenses.   Out of eight months of its purchase the vehicle is with the opposite parties for six months under repairs, some times they say that the motor fixed to the vehicle is not suitable to the vehicle and some times they told that opposite parties 3 and 4 fixed an old motor. The complainant is not happy with the performance of the vehicle and the vehicle is still with the                   2^nd opposite party since two months for repairs.

Complainant issued notices to opposite parties 2 and 4. The notice issued to 2^nd opposite party was received by him and the notice issued to 4^th opposite party was returned unserved with an endorsement as “no such addressee”.  The vehicle was not working as per the standards and the product was failed and unsuccessful in the market and thereby the complainant was subjected to physical and mental agony.   Hence the complaint.

3.     Opposite parties 1 to 4 remained exparte and complainant filed affidavit in support of her version reiterating the same.

4.     On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-9 were marked.

5.   Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

6.  POINT No.1:-   The case of the complainant is that she has purchased an EKO vehicle from OP2 through OP1 manufactured by opposite parties 3 and 4 for Rs.27,000/- on  06-07-10 under Ex.A-1 cash bill and also purchased battery for the said vehicle for Rs.8,600/- dated 07-07-10 under Ex.A-2 and that the said vehicle was frequently giving trouble after two months of its purchase and even though opposite parties 1 and 2 have attended for repairs, they are unable to rectify the defects in spite of replacing some of the parts and she was constrained to bring the vehicle from Narasaraopet to Guntur for getting it repaired by OP2 since OP1 closed its show room at Narasaraopet and that thereby she faced much inconvenience and suffered mental agony due to frequent repairs of the vehicle purchased by her.

  Ex.A-1 is the cash bill dated 06-07-10 for Rs.27,000/- issued by 2^nd opposite party for the purchase of the vehicle by the complainant.   Ex.A-2 is another cash bill dated 07-07-10 issued by 2^nd opposite party to the complainant for purchase of battery for Rs.8,600/-. Since the opposite parties remained exparte the allegations of the complainant that the vehicle purchased by her from OP2 through OP1 manufactured by opposite parties 3 and 4 was giving frequent troubles and it is going out of order and the complainant was getting it repaired frequently, are deemed to have been proved.

 The complainant claimed for refund of the cost of the vehicle i.e., Rs.27,000/- and the cost of the battery i.e., Rs.8,600/-.   As seen from Ex.9 the warranty period for the vehicle in question was given for 365 days and warranty for the battery was given for 180 days.    As per the allegations of the complainant the vehicle was with the 2^nd opposite party since two months prior to the date of complaint.   The date of complaint is 08-03-11.   Therefore as per the allegation of the complainant the vehicle was with 2^nd opposite party since 08-01-11.   The date of purchase of battery as per Ex.A-2 is 07-07-10.  Therefore the battery is beyond the period of warranty.  Hence the opposite parties are not liable for refund of the cost of the battery i.e, Rs.8,600/-.  Therefore the opposite parties are only liable to refund the cost of the vehicle i.e., Rs.27,000/- (as seen from Ex.A-1) since it is within the period of warranty.  Since the vehicle purchased by the complainant as alleged by her was frequently giving trouble within two months after its purchase and as the said allegation of the complainant is deemed to have been proved there is no necessity for obtaining expert opinion regarding the quality of the vehicle.   As the vehicle purchased by the complainant was frequently giving trouble the complainant was subjected to distress and much inconvenience for which opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to her.     Therefore in view of the foregoing discussion and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4.  As opposite parties           1 to 4 have sold a substandard vehicle giving frequent troubles, it amounts to unfair trade practice also. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of the complainant.   

7.  POINT No.2:-   Complainant claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges.   The amount claimed towards compensation is too high and imaginary and complainant has not filed any documents to establish the expenditure incurred by her for the transportation of the vehicle from Narasaraopet to Guntur.   Therefore we are of the opinion that awarding compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony besides directing the opposite parties to refund the cost of the vehicle i.e., Rs.27,000/- together with interest thereon and Rs.2,000/-  towards transport expenses and costs of the complaint would meet ends of justice.  Accordingly this issue is answered.        

10.    In the result the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.27,000/- (Rupees twenty seven thousand only) to the complainant towards costs of the vehicle together with interest thereon @9% p.a., from the date of complaint i.e., 08-03-11 till realization.
2. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant towards the compensation for the mental agony suffered by her.
3. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant towards transport expenses and costs of the complaint.

                The above order shall be complied with in a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order failing which the amount ordered in item No.2 shall also carry interest @9% p.a., till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 3^rd day of November, 2011.   

                   MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                  DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:        

For opposite parties :   NIL       

                                                                                                                                                                                      PRESIDENT