Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/90/2017

G.Srinivas S/o Govindaachar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Authorised signatory,Bharath Benz - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.P.S.Sathyanaryanarao

03 May 2018

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:11/09/2017

DISPOSED      ON:03/05/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

 

CC.NO: 90/2017

 

DATED:  3^rd MAY 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B., PGD., CLP

  

……COMPLAINANT/S	G.Srinivas S/o Govindaachar, Transport Business, 11th cross, Near water tank, IUDP Layout, Chitradurga-577501.   (Rep by Sri.P.S.Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Authorized signatory,     Bharath Benz, Trident Automobiles     Pvt Ltd.,Survey No.57/2,     Kunchignal Village, Kasaba Hobli,     Chitradurga taluk-577502.   2. The Authorized signatory,     Vignesh Auto Agencies,     V.P. Extension Main road,     MRP Lodging Complex,     Chitradurga.   3 The Authorized signatory,    Amara Raja Batteries Ltd.,    Ranigunta, Cuddapah Road,    Karakambadi, Tirupathi-517520,    Andhrapradesh.   (Rep by Sri.K.P. Kashinath, Advocate for OP No.1, Sri. E. Thippeswamy, Advocate for OP No.2 and Sri. M. Govinda Reddy, Advocate for OP No.3)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,35,000/- towards the delay in delivering the new battery, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs and such others reliefs.

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant are that, on 24.12.2016, he purchased Bharath Benz 3123R 8X2 5775 WB BSIII Sleeper Cab chassis radial Tyre Arctic white with ABS and Speed Limiter ECU bearing Regn.No.KA-16 C-6544 bearing Chassis No.MEC2241 CGGPO34058 and Engine No.400950D0034079 for a sum of Rs.25,75,724-22 by availing loan from HDFC Bank.  The complainant has purchased the vehicle for his livelihood and the entire family is depending upon the earnings of the said vehicle.  It is further submitted that, OP No.1 has supplied Amaron battery to the complainant and the same was burst on 15.06.2017.  Immediately, the same has been informed to the OP No.1.  OP No.1 has given new one on 22.07.2017 i.e., after one month seven days.  During that period, the vehicle of the complainant kept idle and suffered a loss of Rs.1,85,000/- to him. The complainant is using this vehicle for transportation of edible oil to so many places.  The complainant has incurred more than Rs.50,000/- towards driver and cleaner charges.  The OPs in order to cheat the complainant with a malafide intention has delayed in giving new battery to the complainant.  The complainant has invested huge amount to purchase the vehicle by availing from the Bank.  Moreover, the complainant has to pay the regular loan installment to the Bank.  Due to the illegal act by the OPs, he was unable to pay the loan installment to the Bank.  It is further submitted that, due to failure of battery, the complainant has suffered mental agony and etc., for having purchase this type of vehicle fitted with defective battery.  The vehicle is a daily earning vehicle, he has faced very hard days during the stoppage of vehicle for want of battery and as such, the complainant was not able to pay the installment to the Bank.  Even though the OP No.1 has delivered the new battery, it is too late and during that time the vehicle was kept idle without any earnings.  For this, the complainant has suffered heavy loss of money, delay in transportation of edible oil and earned bad name in edible oil transportation.  Therefore, the complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs on 05.08.2017, the same was served to the OPs on 08.06.2017.  After service of the notice, the OPs neither replied the notice nor paid the compensation amount.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 09.08.2017 when the notice received by the OPs, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Hence, there is a deficiency of service and prayed to allow the complaint with cost. 

3.      After issuance of notice to the OPs, one Sri. K.P.Kashinath, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.1, Sri. E.Thippeswamy, Advocate appeared on behalf of OP No.2 and Sri. M. Govindareddy, Advocate for OP No.3 appeared on behalf of OP No.3 and filed their version. 

OP No.1 filed version and admits that, the OPs have supplied Amaron Battery to the complainant and the same was burst on 15.06.2017 and the OP No.1 has given a new one on 22.07.2017.  Further, the allegations made in para 3 of the complaint are denied as false.  The allegations made in para 5 to 9 are denied as false.  It is further submitted that, the complainant had received new battery as per the warranty benefits and there is no any other incidental liabilities of OPs under the terms and conditions of the warranty.  The General terms of warranty Serial No.6 specifically described that, proprietary parts not manufactured by DICV but supplied by other manufacturers such as tyres, tubes, batteries and load body shall be governed by terms and conditions of warranty offered by the respective manufacturer and not by DIVC warranty of the above mentioned parts needs to be referred to the respective manufacturer through an authorized dealers.  It is further submitted that, the complainants vehicle is a commercial vehicle and the complainant used the truck for commercial purpose, so the complainant is not a consumer and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

OP No.2 filed version stating that, the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  It is true that, the complainant was purchased Amaron Battery from OP No.1, the same was burst on 15.06.2017 and the OP No.1 replaced with new one on 22.07.2017.  The allegations made in para 3 to 9 are denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The complainant’s truck is a commercial vehicle and used the same for commercial purpose and therefore, the complainant is not a consumer.  The complainant is depending upon the earnings of the said vehicle.  It is further submitted that, the OP No.2 is only a pit shop of OP No.3, has received the burst battery from the complainant on 15.06.2017 and the same was informed to OP No.3 as per the instructions of the OP No.3, OP No.2 informed the complainant to submit the required documents and vehicle electric report, but there is a delay in submitting the vehicle documents by the complainant.  After receiving the required documents, this OP No.2 forwarded the same to OP No.3 without any delay and new battery was installed to the vehicle of the complainant without any delay.  Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

OP No.3 submits that, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  It is true that, the complainant has purchased the Amaron Battery from OP No.1, the same was burst on 15.06.2017 and OP No.2 supplied new battery on 22.07.2017.  The remaining allegations made in para 3 of the complaint are totally denied as false.  The allegations made in para 4 to 9 are denied as false, the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The vehicle of the complainant which the battery in question was fitted was a commercial vehicle as it was used for transportation of edible oil.  Therefore, the complainant is not a consumer and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-4 were got marked and closed his side. OP No.1 has examined one Sri. Narasimhan.G, DGM of Bharat Benz as DW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and relied on Ex.B-1 and B-2, on behalf of OP No.2 one Sri. Sathish. A, Authorized person as DW-2 and on behalf of OP No.3, one Sri. D. Prasanna, Authorized Person as DW-3 and no documents have been got marked and closed their side.    

5.      Arguments of both sides heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

(1)  Whether the complainant proves that, the OPs have committed delay in supplying the battery and committed deficiency in service and entitled for the reliefs as prayed for in the above complaint?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in Affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      It is not in dispute that, the complainant purchased Bharath Benz 3123R 8X2 5775 WB BSIII Sleeper Cab chassis radial Tyre Arctic white with ABS and Speed Limiter ECU bearing Regn.No.KA-16 C-6544 vehicle for his livelihood and the entire family is depending upon the earnings of the said vehicle.  The battery which was supplied by the OP No.1 along with the said vehicle was burst on 15.06.2017, the same was intimated to the OP No.1.  OP No.1 supplied the new battery to the complainant on 22.07.2017 i.e., after one month seven days.  During the said period, the vehicle was kept idle.  According to the complainant, he has suffered loss to the tune of Rs.1,85,000/- due to the delay in supplying the battery, which is a deficiency of service.  According to the OPs, the complainant has purchased Amaron battery from OP No.1 and the same was burst on 15.06.2017, the same was replaced on 22.07.2017.  Here the main point is to be considered is whether the OPs have supplied the new battery to the complainant well in time or not.  As per the documents and pleadings, it clearly goes to show that, the OPs have supplied the battery to the complainant after a lapse of one month seven days.  The OPs have stated in their version that, the complainant has delayed in producing the documents to the OPs, which cannot be accepted because, the OPs have committed deficiency in service in supplying the battery well in time.    

9.   We have gone through the entire documents, version, affidavit and exhibits filed by the complainant and OPs.  It clearly goes to show that, the OPs have supplied the Amaron battery along with the above vehicle on 24.12.2016, the same was burst on 15.06.2017 and the same has been informed to the OPs by the complainant.  It is pertinent to note that, the OP No.1 has supplied the battery on 22.07.2017 i.e., after one month seven days.  During the said period the vehicle of the complainant was kept idle and has suffered financial loss.  As per Ex.A-1, the complainant has purchased the battery from OP No.1, the warranty period is also mentioned in the Ex.A-1.  The battery was burst within the warranty period.  Such being the case, the duty of the OPs is to supply the new battery to the complainant well in time.  But, the OPs have supplied the battery after a lapse of one month seven days.  There is no dispute with regard to the supply of battery to the complainant.  Once the facts admitted by the OPs, it need not be proved by the complainant.  As per Ex.A-1 to A-4, the OPs have supplied the battery after a lapse of one month seven days.  The complainant is depending upon the earnings of said vehicle.  Due to the delay in supplying the battery by the OPs, the vehicle was kept idle which caused the complainant a heavy financial loss and mental agony, which cannot be compensated by any terms.  Hence, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.          

            10.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

          The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OPs are hereby directed jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.74,000/- to the complainant for the delay in delivering the new battery along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OPs hereby directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

            (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 03/05/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP:

DW-1:  Sri. Narasimhan. G. DGM of Bharath Benz by way of affidavit evidence. 

DW-2: Sri. Sathish. A, Authorized person of OP No.2 by way of affidavit evidence. 

DW-3: Sri.D. Prasanna, Authorized person of OP No.3 by way of affidavit evidence. 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Warranty Card
02	Ex-A-2:-	Legal Notice dated 05.08.2017
03	Ex-A-3:-	Postal receipt
04	Ex-A-4:-	Postal Acknowledgement

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

 

01	Ex-B-1:-	Warranty card
02	Ex-B-2:-	Service report

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**