This complaint coming up before us for hearing on 06.07.10 in the presence of Sri A.Govinda Rao, advocate for complainant and of Sri G.V.Ramana, advocate for opposite party, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day of consideration, this Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
PER SMT.T.SUNEETHA, MEMBER:
This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant seeking directions on opposite party to pay Rs.58,750/- towards compensation for the damages caused to complainant including mental agony, pain and suffering and legal expenses.
The brief facts of case are that
The complainant is Ch.Poornachandra Rao resident of Guntur. The opposite party is Sri Vijaya Durga Automotives represented by its proprietor Malisetty Subba Rao, Guntur.
The complainant purchased Accura Company Dry Battery bearing No.8209289 for his electric bike on 20-09-09 from opposite party for an amount of Rs.7,750/- with a warranty of six months. At the time of purchase of said battery, the opposite party assured quality of battery as a good one and if the battery fails within the warranty period it would be replaced by them. The opposite party fixed the battery for the electric bike of complainant. Complainant after using the battery for a couple of days, it failed and stoped working. Immediately the complainant informed the same to opposite party and requested either to replace the battery or to refund the bill amount. But the opposite party gave evasive reply and neither replaced the battery nor refunded the bill amount.
The complainant aggrieved by the behavior of opposite party issued legal notice dt.13-10-09. The opposite party received the same and gave reply notice dt.27-10-09 denying all the allegations laid by complainant. Hence, the complaint.
The opposite party filed its version denying all the allegations made in the complaint, which is in brief as follows:
It is submitted that the complainant actually purchased battery on 20-04-09 for Rs.7750/- by giving post dated cheque bearing No.988645 with a date of 01-05-09 and also took receipt dt.20-04-09 in the his name from opposite party. The cheque was returned, when it was presented in bank with an endorsement that ‘insufficient funds’ on 04-05-09. On repeated demands made by opposite party to pay the above cheque amount, the complainant came to opposite party shop and paid the amount of Rs.7750/- in cash on 20-09-09 and asked for issuance of receipt to that effect. Then the staff of opposite party issued receipt dt.20-09-09 with all particulars.
It is further submitted by opposite party that as per terms of receipt, the company does not hold any responsibility in case of any breakage or shortage caused to goods even within the warranty period. The complainant having caused shortage to battery purchased due to his negligent and careless act. Hiding the same, he approached opposite party and got the bill dt.20-09-09. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
Both parties have filed their respective affidavits in support of their allegations. Ex.A1 to A5 are marked on behalf of complainant. Ex.B1 to B3 are marked on behalf of opposite party.
Now the points for consideration are that
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled to?
POINTS 1 & 2
The complainant submitted that the said battery got repairs after using for a couple of days from the date of purchase i.e., 20-09-09. The opposite party denied date of purchase of battery i.e., 20-09-09 because the actual date of purchase of battery is 20-04-09. Even if we consider the date of purchase as 20-04-09, the repair occurred with in warranty period of 6 months.
On thorough verification of battery by opposite party, they concluded that the battery was spoiled because of shortage, which was due to negligence of complainant. At the time of arguments, the opposite party submitted that the shop was closed on account of loss occurred due to failure of E-bike project and also argued that for the shortage and breakage there would be no replacement as mentioned in the bill issued by them.
Taking into consideration the above facts, the Forum came to conclusion to decide the case via media.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicted below:
- The opposite party is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the complainant for the deficiency of service committed by them, which made the complainant suffer mental agony and pain.
- The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.500/- towards legal expenses to the complainant.
- The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall carry interest @ 9%p.a. till the date of realization.
Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 7th day of July, 2010.
Sd/- x x x Sd/- x x x Sd/- x x x
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
No oral evidence is adduced on either side
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Complainant :
Ex.A-1 : 20-09-09 Cash bill issued by opposite party
Ex.A-2 : 13-10-09 O/c. of legal notice got issued by complainant
Ex.A-3: 13-01-09 Postal receipt
Ex.A-4 : 15-10-09 Postal acknowledgment
Ex.A-5 : 27-10-09 Reply notice issued by opposite party
For Opposite Party:
Ex.B-1 : 20-04-09 Receipt issued by opposite party
Ex.B-2 : - Copy of account particulars of opposite party
Ex.B-3: 20-09-09 Receipt issued by opposite party
Sd/- x x x PRESIDENT
//Fair copy//
