BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President

And

Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member

Wednesday the 8th day of August,2007

C.C. No.66/2007

M. Murali Chandrudu, S/o. M. Raja Rajeswaraiah,

H.No. 25/189 B, Sanjeeva Nagar, Nandyal,  Kurnool.                                                            

COMPLAINANT

                                         Versus

The Manager, Himalaya Power Corporation,

Opposite. Electricity Office, Bhuma Nagi Reddy Buildings,  Saibaba Nagar, Tekke, Nandyal, Kurnool District.                                  

OPPOSITE PARTY

                    This  petition  coming  on  this  day  for  Orders  in the  presence  of Sri.  P. Siva Sudharshan,  Advocate,  Kurnool  for  Complainant and the opposite party called absent and set exparte  and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following:-

ORDER

(As per K.V.H. Prasad, President)

C.C.NO.66/2007

1.        This case of the complainant is filed Under Section 11 and 12 of consumer protection Act seeking direction on the opposite party to return to the complainant Rs.7,000/- (cost of inverter) with interest from 11.6.2005 (date of purchase) till the date of realization or to replace with new invertor of similar model without any defect, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and cost of the case, alleging the purchase of H.P.C.102 (500 V.A Jun 220) model invertor for Rs.7,000/- vide bill No.550 dated 11.6.2005 from the Opposite Party under a warranty card for a period of one year and the said invertor failing in its function since 3 months after to purchase and the Opposite Party failing to rectify the defect in spite of several approaches and  legal notice dated 7.6.2006 and due to the above deficient conduct of the opposite party the complainant suffering mental agony also.

2.      In  spite of the service of the notice of this Forum, by publication, as to the case of the complainant the Opposite Party remained exparte to the case proceedings , and hence  the case is proceeded accordingly on merits, in the light of sworn affidavit of the Complainant and documentary material in Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 .

3.     Hence the point for consideration is whether the Complainant has made out the alleged deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party and there by the liability of the later for the complainant claim .

4.   The Ex.A1 is the invoice issued by the Opposite Party on 10.6.2005 in the name of the Complainant as to order for one H.P.C. Model for Rs.7,000/-.The Ex.A2 is provisional receipt  dated 11.6.2005 issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant in token of the receipt of Rs.7,000/- .The Ex.A3 is the customer warranty card issued in the name of Complainant by the Opposite Party for the purchased model No.H.P.C 102 (500 V.A. Jun-220 ) showing the date of purchase as 10.6.2005 and date of expiry of warranty to 9.6.2006. The Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 disclosed the cost of  said invertor as Rs.7,000/- and the receipt of said amount by the Opposite Party from the Complainant and the said invertor was covered under warranty for one year from the date of purchase. The Ex.A5 is the office copy of legal notice caused on the Opposite Party reiterating the grievances of the Complainant  as to the said invertor and the failure of Opposite Party to rectify its defects in spite of several approaches and so calling upon the Opposite Party to refund Rs.7,000/- (Cost of invertor) with interest at the rate of 24 % per annum from the date of  purchase till the date of realization. The Ex.A5 envisages the transmission of the above said notice to the Opposite Party .The above said material and the alleged grievances of the Complainant being not rebutted by the Opposite Party the case of the Complainant is remaining established as to the deficient conduct of the Opposite Party in not attending the defects of said invertor during warranty period and there by the latter's liability to justifiable amount.

5.     The complainant claim's an amount of Rs.7,000/- with 24% from the date of purchase till realization or in alternative the supply of a defect free new invertor of the same type. There appears justifiability in the alternate relief sought, as there is no justifiability in seeking refund of Rs.7,000/- from the date of purchase as admittedly the said invertor failed in its functioning not from the date of purchase but 3 months later to then.

6.    The complainant claim's an amount of Rs.5,000/- for the first time in the complaint towards mental agony as the Ex.A5 notice doesn't take any mention of the same. Nor does the Complainant sworn affidavit places any cogent material in support of said claim . But however as the defect in said invertor was not attended by the opposite party inspite of its coverage under warranty, on amount of Rs.1,000/- appears to meet the mental agony of the Complainant at the indifferent attitude of the Opposite Party towards his liability to the purchaser of goods.

7.    The Complainant seeks the costs of the case without saying of its quantum . As the Opposite Party by his indifferent attitude and deficient conduct driven the Complainant to the Forum for redressal of his  justifiable grievances an amount of Rs.1,000/-  appears to meet the costs of the Complainant  in this case.

8.    In the result of above discussion , the Complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to furnish a defect free new invertor of same type to the complainant, pay Rs.1,000/- towards mental agony  to the Complainant, and Rs.1,000/- as cost of this case within a month of the receipt of this order. In default  the Opposite Party  shall refund the cost of the invertor (i.e., Rs.7,000/-) along with the supra stated amounts awarded towards mental agony and costs , with an interest 9% per annum from the date of said default till  satisfactory realization of the award.

      Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced in the open bench this is the 8th day of August, 2007.

    Sd/-                                                      Sd/-

MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT   

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :Nil                    For the opposite parties :Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1.       Invoice , dated 10.6.2005 for Rs.7,000/-.

Ex.A2.       Provisional Receipt dated 11.6.2005 for Rs.7,000/-.

Ex.A3.       Warranty Card.

Ex.A4.       Office copy of legal notice , dated 7.6.2006.

Ex.A5.       Courier receipt No. H 27061210

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties : Nil

    Sd/-                                                                              Sd/-

MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT

Copy to:-

1. Sri. P. Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, Kurnool.

Copy was made ready on:

Copy was dispatched on:

Copy was delivered to parties:

- 2 -

- 1 -