Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/362/2012

Jonnada Neelima - Complainant(s)

Versus

Synergy Power Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

U.S.V. Prasad

09 Jul 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:05-11-2012 

                                                                                                Date of Order:09-07-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                                VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

                                3. Sri C.V. Rao, M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                              Thursday, the 9^th day of July, 2015.

                             CONSUMER CASE No.362/2012

Between:-

Smt. Jonnada Neelima, W/o Sri Mutyala  Santhosh

Krishna, Hindu, aged 27 years, residing at

Door No. 43-60-23/10, TSN Colony, Subbalakshmi

Nagar, Visakhapatnam-530 016.

                                                                                                     ….. Complainant

And:-

1.Synergy Power Solutions, represented by its

    Proprietor, Door No. 8-11-6, beside Lata Hospital,

   NH-5, Old Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-530 026.

2.Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Limited, represented

   by is its Manager, besides Lata Hospital, NH-5, Old

   Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam-530 026.

3.Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Limited, represented by its

   Manager, Near Raju Bangara  Raju Theatres,

   Narsipatnam.

                                                                                      …  Opposite Parties

                     

This case coming on 09.07.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri U.S.V. Prasad and Sri P. Sukumar Rao, Advocates for the Complainant and Sri W.V.B. Ramalingam, Advocate for the 1^st Opposite Party and Sri K. Ramakanth Reddy, Advocate for the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties  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 purchased an Inverter vide P.2-875 VA (436D3E20003853) and Battery vide P.2-TT 150AH (TTUo125M109747) AMARON AMARAJA POWER OF ZONE BATTERY, from the 1^st Opposite Party on 12.09.2012 to be installed at their residence at Narsipatnam.   On the advice of the 1^st Opposite Party and its assurance to the Complainant that they undertake transport of the said two items to Narsipatnam.  After issuance of the Bill vide No.656 dated 12.09.2012, the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.16,000/- by way of cash to the 1^st Opposite Party.  After assurance made by the 1^st Opposite Party the Complainant left those two items with the 1^st Opposite Party, the 1^st Opposite Party informed to the Complainant that they send the above 2 items through the 2^nd Opposite Party and can be received on 13.09.2012. The Complainant noticed that after removing the package of the 2 items the battery was broken, whereas the inverter is as it is.  Then the brother and husband of the Complainant insisted the 3^rd Opposite Party to issue a certificate of damage to the battery, thereby they issued a certificate stating that the battery in damaged condition dated 21.09.2012.  Immediately the Complainant approached the 1^st Opposite Party and upon their advise the Complainant handover the damaged battery to the 1^st Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party refused to replace the damaged battery with a new one.   Hence, this Complainant.

2.       a) Directing the Opposite Parties to change the Damaged Battery vide P.2-TT 150AH (TTU0125M109747) AMARON with new one as the warrant period is still subsisting in failure to refund the Cost of the Damages Battery worth of Rs.6,000/-;

(Amended as per the orders in IA No.52/2005 dated 04.03.2015)

b) To pay damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) for the inconvenience and mental agony caused to the Complainant purely on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties;

          c) To pay Rs.2,000/- to the Complainant for the mental agony caused;

          d) To pay the costs of the Complaint; and

          e) For such other relief or relieves as this Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

         

3.       The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from their individual counter.   

     

         The 1^st Opposite Party strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant stating that the damage to the battery might be caused during the transit from Gajuwaka to Narsipatnam through the vehicle of the 2^nd Opposite Party and their workers might be not taken proper care while transporting the above items.    If there is any manufacturing defect, this Opposite Party will replace the battery with a new one.   But in the present complaint, there is no manufacturing defect, and the battery was damaged during the transit only.  So, they have no liable to pay any reliefs asked by the Complainant.

 

          The 2^nd Opposite Party filed its counter denying all the allegations made by the Complainant stating that the 1^st Opposite Party booked the two items through this Opposite Party for transportation of goods, which were in packaged condition.   So, the 2^nd Opposite Party did not identify the two items at the time of booking, it is very clear that the “Booked at Owner’s Risk Company is not liable for any breakage, Leakage and damage”.   The Complainant did not furnish the original value of the battery and whether it is old or new one.   The Complainant has no Locus-standi to file the petition.  So, they have no liability to pay any reliefs asked by the Complainant.

 

4.       At the time of enquiry, both parties filed their affidavits as well as written arguments to support their contentions.   Exs.A1 to A3 are marked for the Complainant.   No documents are marked for the Opposite Parties.   Heard both sides.

 

5.       Ex.A1 is the original copy of Tax Invoice No. 656 an amount of Rs.16,000/- issued by the 1^st Opposite Party in favour of the Complainant dated 12.09.2012.   Ex.A2 is the original Cash Receipt an amount of Rs.127/- issued by the SRMT in favour of A. Kishore Gupta dated 14.09.2012.   Ex.A3 is the original Certificate of Damages/Witness issued by the 3^rd Opposite Party dated 21.09.12.

 

6.       The fact shown from Exs. A2 and A3 that the consignee is one Mr. A. Kishore Gupta.

 

7.       The point that would arise for determination in the case is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   Whether the Complainant is entitled to any reliefs asked for?

 

8.         After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant purchased an Inverter & Battery on 12.09.2012 from the 1^st Opposite Party by paying Rs.16,000/- as per Ex.A1.   As per Ex.A2 a consignment was booked by the 1^st Opposite Party i.e., Synergy Power Solutions to Sri A. Kishore Gupta resident of Narsipatnam bearing No.7219250 dated 12.09.2012.   This complaint is filed on the basis of consignment receipt Ex.A2.   As such, we find that the Complainant has no Locus-standi to file the complaint as the Complainant failed to prove that there is any relation between herself and A. Kishore Gupta who is the consignee of the said consignment.   Moreover, in the complaint she did not mention anywhere that Mr. A. Kishore Gupta is her representative to receive the consignment.  So, the Complaint has no Locus-standi to file the present complaint as Ex.A2 belongs to a stranger.   Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

10.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

 

Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this 9^th day of July, 2015.

             

Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                       Sd/-                                 

President                              Male Member                      Lady Member

                                     

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	12.09.2012	Tax Invoice No.656 an amount of Rs.16,000/- issued by the 1st OP in favour of the Complainant	Original
Ex.A02	14.09.2012	Cash Receipt an amount of Rs.127/- issued by SRMT in favour of A. Kishore Gupta	Original
Ex.A03	21.09.2012	Certificate of Damages/Witness issued by the 3rd OP	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-            

                                                        

                                                -Nil-

 

 

Sd/-                                   Sd/-                                                       Sd/-

President                          Male Member                                Lady Member