Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/61/2018

M. Prasad, S/o Late Narasappa Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rajesh B, Myneni, Managing Partner - Opp.Party(s)

V.Bhaskar Naidu

14 Jun 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 01.10.2018

Order Date:14.06.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

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

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.61/2018

 

 

Between

 

 

Madupuru Prasad,

S/o. late. Narasappa Naidu,

Aged about 57 years, Hindu, Advocate,

D.No. 6-167, Babu Agraharam,

Srikalahasti Town and Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

Rajesh B. Myneni,

Managing Partner,

Avonova CVR Chambers,

Moghalrajpuram,

Vijayawada.                                                                                      …  Opposite party.

 

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 17.04.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.V.Bhaskar Naidu, counsel for the complainant, and opposite party remained exparte, 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 of C.P.Act 1986, seeking direction to opposite party, to pay an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with future interest at 24% p.a. till realization, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for undergoing mental agony due to deficiency in service, and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the litigation.

            2.  The complaint averments are as follows – The complainant is residing in D.No.6-167, Babu Agraharam, Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He installed Legrand automotive electrical system in his house. One S.Sathyanarayana, Advocate, Tirupati, introduced the opposite party to complainant, and the opposite party visited the house of complainant at Srikalahsti in the month of April 2013, and explained him about the functioning of automotive electrical system through his computer. Thereafter, the complainant placed order at Srikalahasti, for installation of automotive system in his house at an estimated cost of Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.50,000/- towards advance to the opposite party on the same day. The opposite party told him that the equipments are in other country, and it will reach complainant’s house within 3 months, after placing of order. As per the terms and conditions, all the equipments were reached the complainant house after 8 months, and thereafter the automotive system was installed in February 2014, by the opposite party through his technician by name Siva. The complainant paid remaining amount of Rs.4,50,000/- on the very same day at his house, but opposite party did not give any bill / invoice for Rs.5,00,000/-, by saying that he will send it later. The opposite party used E41 power supply protection two numbers, E46 ADCN lighting automation power supply two numbers, No.HS4680 four button scenario controller three numbers, F411/4 four channel actuator nine numbers, F420 scenario module one number, F44U2 two channel actuator for curtain controller three numbers, HC4654 active infrared receivers five numbers, HC4653/2 soft touch controller five numbers. After the installation, whenever the complainant called the opposite party over phone, he or his technician never visited the house of complainant, to solve the problem arising out of automotive system. Like that nearly 200 times, the complainant requested the opposite party over phone, but he never responded to the calls of complainant, to rectify the system. At the time of installation of automotive system in the complainant house, the opposite party promised that he will provide prompt service to the complainant. The opposite party kept the complainant in dark with regard to manufacturers, and did not allow the complainant to talk to the manufacturers regarding the credibility, viability and guarantee of the system. Once the technician came and verified and stated that the system is in good condition and the problem is only in automotive. On 10.06.2018 suddenly total system failed and there was no light or fan in the house of complainant, and they spent the day in dark. Immediately, opposite party was informed over phone, one technician by name Kiran came and checked the system and advised the complainant to ask for replacement. Since then opposite party is evading to rectify the defect in the system, inspite of repeated calls by the complainant. The emblem lable of the automotive system is E46 ADCN “AFTER AN OVER LOAD OR SHORT CIRCUIT CUT OFF IN PUT FOR FIVE MINUTES” shows that any power fluctuations, the system will cut off the power for five minutes, to protect the entire system not to be collapsed. He also got issued notice on 20.06.2018 and 28.06.2018, to opposite party calling upon him to replace the same with his expenses. As there is no other alternative, the complainant approached Legrand company people and they came and replaced the new system in the place of damaged system, at an estimated cost of Rs.4,00,000/-, being the cost of equipment. Hence, the complaint.

            3.  The opposite party, remained exparte, as notice issued to opposite party was not claimed by him.

            4.  P.W.1 filed the chief affidavit and marked Exs.A1 to A6.

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

        6. Point:-  Ex.A1 is office copy of legal notice dt:20.06.2018, wherein the complainant sought for Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Ex.A2 is office copy of rejoinder notice dt:28.06.2018, issued by complainant to opposite party and one Ashok Kumar Garike and Mohan Kantha, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Ex.A3 is email forwarded by opposite party to Legrand company. Ex.A4 is Legrand Warranty Certificate. Ex.A5 is product bill given by the opposite party dt:20.02.2014. Ex.A6 is email forwarded by the opposite party to one Ashok Kumar Garike. Ex.A3 and Ex.A6 are more or less the same.

            7.  In the written arguments, complainant argued that automotive electrical system installed in his house at the instance of opposite party failed, and thereafter the opposite party never responded inspite of issuing legal notice and phone calls, and therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Admittedly, the opposite party is not a company. It is not the case of complainant that the automotive system is installed in his house by any company. It is the case of complainant that one Rajesh Myneni (O.P.) came to his house at Srikalahsti and explained about the system through compouter and having satisfied with the details given by opposite party, complainant agreed for installation of automotive electrical system in his house. According to complainant, he paid Rs.50,000/- to opposite party, for which no payment receipt is filed. Likewise, complainant failed to file any document to show that he paid remaining Rs.4,50,000/- to opposite party at the time of installation of automotive system in his house. The contention of complainant that the opposite party did not issue any receipt or bill by stating that the same would be issued later cannot be accepted. In the absence of any documentary proof, it is to be held that complainant is not a customer of opposite party. Even the documentary evidence shows that one Ashok Kumar is very much in the picture. The Gmail forwarded by the opposite party is to Ashok Kumar and it shows that opposite party acted as an agent between Ashok Kumar and complainant. The said Ashok Kumar is not a party to the proceedings. The complainant is not in a position to say from whom he purchased the automotive electrical system and to whom he paid the amount. Hence, in the absence of any documentary proof, we hold that complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer, as per C.P.Act 1986. Hence, the complaint is not maintainable under C.P.Act before this Forum. Accordingly, complaint is dismissed.

            8.  In the result, complaint is dismissed. No costs.                    

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 14^th day of June, 2019.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                                    

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

 PW-1: Madupuru Prasad (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

-NIL-

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Office copy of Legal Notice (Photo copy ) Dt: 20.06.2018.
	Office copy of Re-Joinder Notice( Photo Copy) Dt: 28.06.2018.
	Photo copy of Mail copy issued by the respondent to Legrand Company. Dt:19.06.2018.
	Photo copy of Warranty certificate documents and bills filed on behalf of the complainant.
	Photo copy of product bill given by respondent. Dt: 20.02.2014.
	Photo Copy of E-mail print send by the respondent to the complainant.        Dt: 13.06.2018.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

 

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-        

                                                                                                                President (FAC)

     

     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

     

      

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.