BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 15th day the May, 2006.
C.D.No.13/2006
Dr.Smt. K.Kubra Begum,W/o B.Rasheed, Muslim, Aged about 42 years,
Owner of Ruhee Hospital, Kodumur Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.
. . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Manager, M/s Himalaya Power Corporation,
Bhuma Nagi Reddy Buildings, Saibaba Nagar, Nandyal, Kurnool District.
. . . Opposite party
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri P.Mahesh Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri M.Ch.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Sri. R.Ramachandra Reddy, Honourable Member)
1. This CD case of the complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking direction on the opposite party to replace the inverter with new one, to grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs of the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that she is a professional doctor at Kodumur running a hospital there at Kodumur under a name and style as Ruhee Hospital, Kodumur. It is a prestigious hospital at Kodumur attending all sorts of emergency cases at all times. To face the trouble of power cut and to be useful to the hospital at all times of emergency, the complainant had purchased Power Inverter from the opposite party’s company on 10-2-2005 for Rs.6,500/-. At the time of purchase the opposite party’s company had provided a Guarantee Card allowing warrantee for a period of one year i.e. up to 10-2-2006 and the complainant had taken the said inverter from the opposite party. Immediately after one week of its purchase, the inverter had become defunct and the subordinates of the opposite party came in March, 2005 and effected repairs on the inverter. But to the surprise of her on the very next day itself after it has repaired by the subordinates of the opposite party, it was again became defunct. Immediately she again informed the same to the opposite party, but not one on the behalf of the opposite party had come and attended the repairs. Subsequently also she reminded the opposite party so many times and at last the opposite party had informed her to send the same to the office at Nandyal of the opposite party for effecting repairs. Accordingly, she had sent the same to Nandyal and got it handed over at the office of the opposite party at Nandyal on 26-9-2005. Subsequently even inspite of repeated requests and demands made by her for its return, the company of the opposite party did not lift its little finger and did not care to send the inverter back to her even inspite of the letter dated 1-11-2005 addressed to the opposite party by her in which she had requested the opposite party either to get the inverter repair and handed over to her or to return the purchase money of Rs.6,500/-. While responding the said notice the opposite party had agreed either to get the inverter repair or to refund the amount by his letter dated 15-11-2005. But, so far the opposite party did not either refund the amount being the cost of the said inverter or get it repaired and returned to her. She got issued legal notice on 10-12-2005. But there is no response from the opposite party till this date. Due to the negligence of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party she had to face much trouble in the maintenance of the hospital during the period of power cut and thus lost her prestige among the public with regard to the maintenance of the hospital which resulted in sending back emergency cases during the period. Thus, in not having returned the inverter after getting it repaired contra to the conditions of warrantee. Those the warrantee period is not at completed. The opposite party violated the conditions of the warrantee and made himself liable for damages. Hence, she is demanding damages of Rs.50,000/- from the opposite party for the failure of the opposite party in having sold such a defunct inverter and also in failure of getting it repair as and when she send the inverter to effect its repairs during the warrantee period. The above said lapsive conduct of the opposite party constrained the complainant to resort to this Forum for redressal of the claim of the complainant i.e. to replace the inverter with new one or refund the amount of Rs.6,500/-, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs of this complaint.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to the case of the complainant the opposite party’s counsel appeared on its behalf and contest the case by filing its written version denying any deficiency of service on its part and there by any of its liability to the claim of the complainant and seeking dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4. In the written version of the opposite party admits that the complainant had purchased the power inverter for Rs.6,500/- on 10-2-2005 from its Himalaya Power Corporation but the opposite party do not know the profession of the complainant and whether she is running a prestigious hospital at Kodumur or not and denied all the allegations of the complainant averred in its complaint and the inverter which the opposite party sold to the complainant is in a perfect good condition and as such there is no deficiency of service by him further the complainant has to prove the defect in inverter through an independent expert. Even for arguments sake if there is any problem in the inverter it is not due to manufacturing defect but due to wrong handling of the said inverter, as such there is no cause of action for filing of this complaint and no deficiency of service on its part and it is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. In substantiation of the case averments while the complainant side has relied up on the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A6 besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its case, the opposite party side has filed its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its defense. Further, the complainant and opposite party exchanged between them interrogatories and their replies along with written arguments for the appreciation of their cases.
6. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the alleged deficiency of service in the conduct of the opposite party towards him entitling him for the reliefs sought.?
7. The Ex.A1 is a printed receipt No.752 dated 5-3-2005 issued by the opposite party in token of the receipt of Rs.2,000/- which is said to have an installment amount for the purchase of the inverter 500 V.A. Since, there is no dispute about the purchase of said inverter for Rs.6,500/- it has only a formal material to look into for its appreciation. The Ex.A2 is the customers warrantee card issued by the opposite party with its office seal in the name of the complainant wherein the address mentioned as Ruhi Hospital, Old Bus stand, Kodumur, Kurnool District. The model Number mentioned as HPC 102, 500 V.A. The date of purchase mentioned as 10-2-2005 and the date of expiry of warrantee as 10-2-2006. The Ex.A3 is the legal notice dated 10-12-2005 sent by the complainant’s counsel to the opposite party wherein the complainant’s counsel called upon the opposite party to pay damages to his client for the loss of her prestige among the public and the mental torcher experienced by his clients with non-functioning of the opposite party’s inverter to a tune of Rs.50,000/- including the cost of the inverter, Rs.6,500/- with interest thereon at 24% per annum from the date of purchase from the opposite party’s company. The Ex.A4 is an acknowledgement of the opposite party in token of the receipt of the said legal notice i.e. Ex.A3. The Ex.A5 is the letter dated 1-11-2005 addressed to the opposite party by the complainant wherein it is stated that she had handed over the inverter at the opposite party‘s office on 26-9-2005 for repair and a month passed and the opposite party has failed to set right the defect till now i.e. 1-11-2005 and further stated that the opposite party has to take back the battery and wiring equipment and return back her amount of Rs.6,500/- within a week, otherwise the opposite party may be responsible for the actions taking against the opposite party’s company. The Ex.A6 is the reply letter dated 15-11-2005 of the opposite party with its office seal and authorized signatory of the said company, Nandyal to the letter of the complainant i.e. Ex.A5. Wherein the opposite party admitted that he had taken the inverter for the repair of model No. HPC 102, 500 V.A. two months ago (This mention approximately tallies with that date of return of the said inverter i.e. 26-9-2005 to the opposite party for its repairs mentioned in Ex.A5 with the date of letter of the Ex.A6 i.e. 15-11-2005) which has purchased from its company on 10-2-2005. Wherein the opposite party stated that the said inverter rectified perfectly, but unfortunately not send the same to the complainant’s hospital due to domestic problems and promised to install the said inverter in good condition at the complainant’s hospital within the warrantee period i.e. 10-2-2006, otherwise the opposite party will take back its inverter and cost will be paid to the complainant.
8. Hence, the opposite party miserably failed to substantiate its case against the cogent material filed by the complainant i.e. Ex.A1 to A6. When the opposite party himself admits the averments of the complaint of the complainant in Ex.A6, the opposite party estopped from the liability which opposite party ought to have fulfilled and refunded the amount of Rs.6,500/- towards the cost of the inverter (Model No. HPC 102, 500 V.A.) to the complainant, the said conduct of the opposite party in not refunding the said amount to the complainant is certainly amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and there by entitling the complainant to the claim as the bonafidies of the complainant’s claim are not otherwise disturbed.
9. In the result and in sum up of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund Rs.6,500/-, the cost of the said inverter to the complainant after receiving from the complainant the battery and the wire equipment with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchase i.e. 10-2-2005, to pay Rs.15,000/- towards the compensation for mental agony in the circumstances of the case and to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the costs of this case, is granted one month time for the compliance of this order. In default, the opposite party shall pay the supra awarded amount with 12% interest per annum from the date of said default till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 15th day of May, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
Exhibits Marked for the complainant:
Ex.A1 Bill for purchase of Inverter, Dt.5-3-2005 for Rs.2,000/-
Ex.A2 Customer’s Warrantee Card.
Ex.A3 Office copy of the legal notice, Dt.10-12-2005 to opposite party.
Ex.A4 Postal acknowledgement of notice by opposite party.
Ex.A5 Office copy of complainant letter, Dt.1-11-2005.
Ex.A6 Reply of opposite party to Ex.A5, Dt.15-11-2005.
Exhibits Marked for the opposite party: Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER
Copy to
1. Sri P.Mahesh Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri M.Ch.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
