Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/160/2012

Nunna Peda Subba Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Saradhi - Opp.Party(s)

Nunna Peda Subba Rao, INPERSON

20 Jun 2015

ORDER

Reg. of the Complaint:25-05-2012

                                                                                                                                      Date of Order:20-06-2015

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

                                            

 

SATURDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015

CONSUMER CASE NO.160/2012

 

BETWEEN:

Nunna Peda Subbba Rao s/o late Krishna Murthy,

Hindu, aged 65 years,  D.No.12-03-42, Saradha Colony,

Street No.3, Anakapalli-531001.

…Complainant

AND:

Sri Saradhi, Authorised Dealer of

“Kumar Pump Motor” S.V.S.Iron Hardware,

And Genral Stores, Main Road,

S.Rayavaram Mandal, Addu Road-531083

…Opposite Party

This case coming on 12-06-2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of SRI N.P.SUBBA RAO, Advocate for the Complainant, and of SRI D.S.RAMA RAJU, Advocate for the Opposite Party, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following.

                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   

ORDER

 (As per the Honourable President on behalf of the Bench)                                                                              

 

1. The Complainant filed the present Compliant against the OP, directing him to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- with interest @ 12 % p.a., from 29.03.2012, Rs.24,000/- towards compensation, Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that in the year 2012 March, 27^th he took a bore well to his house situated Nakkapalli village, D.No.2-34. On enquiry, I was told the authorized dealer of Kumar Pump Motor is the competent person to supply pipes who supplied Nandi Gold Pipe as ISI Mark as they are best in quality and believing  their words on 29-03-2012 he approached them and when he informed his bore is located 10ft to NH5, he further informed his bore is located in the vacant place of his house and there is every possibility of theft of pipes and on that he informed that he is ready to affix the pump in the vacant site of his house which is at a distant of 30feet on that he was informed 1HP pump is not suitable and he asked to 1.5. HT pump on that they informed him 1 HP that is also got water from 150ft, he asked them to produce technical manual book he was told that it is not available but assured him to take the same pump believing their words, he paid advance and is asked them to send HDPE Pipe 100sft in length, they persuaded him and sent 110ft pump. Therefore, on the assurance of OPs, he affixed the bore pipe UPVC in order to get water from bore well from 30ft, he could not get water in spite of his best efforts. Then, he immediately informed the same to OP but they did not properly respond. On the next day by removing pipes supplied by OP when he affixed pipe at a distance of 5ft, he got water from bore as he changed the pump 2 or 3 times, he engaged plumber and electrician as a result, he sustained loss. Hence, this complaint.
3. The case of OP denying the material averments of the complaint is that the complaint is a most litigant and habituated to file false complaints to get money and created documents dated 14-03-2004, 19-07-2012 and 31-01-2015, They sent the bills as requested by the complainant, there are no technical problems for the pipes sent by him therefore, there is no need for him to give any expenses to the complaint, for these reasons, this complaint is not maintainable. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
4. To prove the case, on behalf of the complainant, he filed his affidavit and got marked Exhibits A1 to A21. On the other hand, on behalf of the OP, he field his affidavit, no documents are marked.
5. Exhibits A1 is the Cheque For Rs.5,000/-, dated 30-03-2012, Exhibit A2 is the Appeal Application, dated 02-04-2012, Exhibit A3 is the Request Letter, 03-04-2012, Exhibit A4 is the Receipt, dated 31-03-2012, , Exhibit A5 is the Receipt, dated 31-03-2012, , Exhibit A6 is the Receipt, dated 20-04-2012, Exhibit A7 is the Receipt, dated 02-04-2012, , Exhibit A8 is the Cash Bill, dated 18-09-2012, Exhibit A9 is the Cash Bill, dated 18-09-2012, Exhibit A10 is the Acknowledgement Details, dated 10-05-2012, Exhibit A11 is the Letter, dated 01-05-2012, Exhibit A12 is the  Postal Receipt, dated 11-04-2012, Exhibit A13 is the Receipt, dated 04-02-2012, Exhibit A14 is the Photograph, Exhibit A15 is the Photograph, Exhibit A16 is the Receipt, dated 21-03-2012, Exhibit A17 is the Receipt, dated 27-03-2012, Exhibit A18 is the Receipt, dated 27-03-2012, Exhibit A19 is the Receipt, dated 20-04-2013, Exhibit A20 is the Receipt, dated 18-12-2013, Exhibit A21 is the Receipt, dated 06-03-2014.
6. Both parties filed their respective written arguments.
7. Heard arguments from both sides.

Now the point for determination to be determined in this case is;

Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the OP and the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

     8.  The case of the complainant is that at the first instance, he fixed the bore well as suggested by the OP but he could not get bore water and when he returned the same, there was no response from OP. Thereupon, he removed the pipes and fixed them at a distance of 5ft then he got the water from the bore which resulted expenses towards engagement of plumber, electrician, cement bricks etc., and when he approached the OP, he did not compensate for the same. The complainant in his evidence affidavit reiterated the averments made by him in the complaint, his evidence is supported by Exhibit A4 to A7 said to have been issued by one K.Satyanarayana stating that the complaint incurred an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards fixing the borewell,  attending of electrical works etc., and for Cooli Work. On careful scrutiny of evidence affidavit coupled with the aforesaid exhibits receipts, we are of the considered view that the complaint incurred  some amount towards replace of the pipes from one end suggested by the OP to the other end,  the acts of the OP clearly indicates that there is deficiency of service on his part. Having regard to all these facts circumstances, we are of the view that the expenditure incurred by the complainant has to be reimbursed that it is not mean to say that whatever amount he sought to be granted.

   9.    Now the question that comes up for consideration, at this stage of our discussion is, what is the rate of interest for which the Complainant is entitled.  The rate of interest claimed by the Complainant is 12% p.a.  This rate of interest claimed by the Complainant appears to be excessive, of course, it is a fact that the transaction covered by Ex.A4 to A7 is commercial in nature, but that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant is licensed to claim interest @ 12% p.a.  But at the same time, it is imperative on our part to award a reasonable interest.   Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we sincerely feel having considered the case on hand awarding of interest @ 9% p.a. would better serve the ends of justice.    Consequently, we proposed to fix the rate of interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of registration of the complaint i.e., 23-05-2012,.   Accordingly interest is ordered.

   9.    Whether the Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.24,000/- is to be considered.   It appears as seen from the evidence of Complainant that the Complainant was compelled to approach the Opposite Parties and therefore experienced a lot of physical strain besides mental agony and financial loss. It is an un-disputed fact that the Opposite Parties did not settle the claim amount covered under the said policy to the Complainant .   Naturally, that might have put the Complainant to suffer some mental agony besides physical stress and strain.   In this view of the matter, we sincerely feel that it is a fit case to award compensation.   But that does not and cannot mean to say that the Complainant claim for compensation is acceptable.    Having regard to all these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion, award of compensation of 1,000/- would serve the ends of justice.   We therefore, proposed to award compensation of Rs.1,000 /-,  in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly this point is answered.

  10.   Before parting our discussion, it is incumbent and imperative  on our part to consider the costs of litigation.   The Complainant ought not have to approach this Forum had her claim for payment of Rs.5,000/- or reliefs sought for have been honored by the Opposite           Parties within a reasonable time and in view of the matter, the Complainant’s claim for costs deserves to be allowed.   In our considered and unanimous opinion awarding a sum of Rs.1,000/-  as    costs would appropriate and reasonable.   Accordingly costs are awarded.

  11.   In the light of our discussion, referred supra, the complainant is entitled to receive the sum of Rs.3,000/- @ 9% p.a., from the date of registration of the complainant i.e., 23-05-2012, a compensation of Rs.1,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-.

12.     In the result, this complaint is allowed in part, directing the OP to pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) with interest @ 9%  p.a., from the date of Registration of the complainant i.e., 23-05-2012, a compensation of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) towards costs. 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  20^th day of June, 2015.                                   

 

Sd/-                                                   Sd/-                                            Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                            MALE MEMBER                        PRESIDENT       

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  For the Complainant:-

Exhibits	Date	Description	Remarks
A1	30-03-2012	Cheque for Rs.5,000/-	Photocopy
A2	02-04-2012	Appeal Application	Photocopy
A3	03-04-2012	Request letter	Photocopy
A4	31-03-2012	Receipt	Original
A5	31-03-2012	Receipt	Original
A6	02-04-2012	Receipt	Original
A7	02-04-2012	Receipt	Original
A8	18-09-2012	Receipt	Original
A9	18-09-2012	Cash Bill	Original
A10	10-05-2012	Acknowledgement Details	Photocopy
A11	01-05-2012	Letter	Photocopy
A12	11-04-2012	Postal Receipt	Photocopy
A13	04-02-2012	Receipt	Original
A14		Photograph	Original
A15		Photograph	Original
A16	21-03-2012	Receipt	Original
A17	27-03-2012	Receipt	Original
A18	27-03-2012	Receipt	Original
A19	20-04-2013	Receipt	Original
A20	18-12-2013	Receipt	Original
A21	06-03-2014	Receipt	Original

For the Opposite Party:-   nil

 

Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                             MALE MEMBER                         PRESIDENT