BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
and
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 22nd day of September, 2005
CC No. 120/2005
Dr K. Sreenivasa Reddy,President,
M/s Swapnalok Apartments Residents-Association,
44/98 Prakasam Nagar,Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Manager,
M/s. Thyssen Krupp ECE Elevator (P)Ltd,
No. 7/JK.III floor, Shoukat Bldg, S.J.P. Road, Bangalore-560 002.
2. The Branch Manager,
M/s Thyseen Krupp ECE Elevator (P) Ltd,
Ground floor, 6-1-69-4-6 Public Garden Road, Saifabad Area, Hyderabad. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on 19.9.2005 for arguments in the presence Sri M.Sreenivasan, Advocate for complainant, opposite party No.1 and 2 set exparte and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay Rs. 6,075/- as costs for 5 services, Rs.15,700/- as repair charges of elevator, Rs. 25,000/- as loss to the owners for non occupation of apartments, Rs.2,500/- as incidental charges for traveling incurred to contact opposite parties, Rs.10,000/- compensation for mental agony, costs of the complaint and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant has entered into a Comprehensive Maintenance Agreement with opposite party No.1, for monthly service of ECE elevator installed in Swapnalok Apartments, Prakash Nagar, Kurnool. The complainant paid Rs. 14,580/- towards service for a period covering from 1.12.2003 to 30.11.2004. The opposite party No.2 is the local area office to do service to the said elevator. The opposite parties defaulted in rendering 5 monthly services to the said elevator and the said elevator stopped functioning. The said matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties and even after several letters, number of telephonic calls and personal visits, the opposite parties did not respond, being vexed the complainant got issued lawyers notice dt 15.3.2005, the opposite party No.1 replied dt 24.3.2005. Even after receiving lawyer’s notice the opposite parties did not bother to do maintenance service to the said elevator. Thereafter, the complainant was forced to spend Rs.15,700/- to bring back the said elevator to working condition. Hence the above said attitude of opposite parties constrained the complainant to seek redressal in this Forum.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) Comprehensive Maintenance Agreement entered between opposite party No.1 and complainant dated 14.1.2004 (2) Xerox copy of letter, dt 26.7.2004 of complainant to opposite party no.2 copy marked to opposite party No.1 (3) Xerox copy of reply by opposite party No.1 dated 24.3.2005 to the complainant’s counsel and (4) Xerox copy of legal notice dt 15.3.2005 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties 1 and 2, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex A.1 to A.4 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1 and 2 remained exparte through out the case proceedings and did not contested the case by filling any written version.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
6. The Ex A.1 is the Comprehensive Maintenance Agreement enter between the complainant and the opposite party No.1, it dates to 14.01.2004 the said agreement was entered for a period from 1.12.2003 to 30.11.2004 for a period of one year during the said period the opposite parties have to maintain and examining the said elevator on regularly working hours once in a month and repair or replace if any free of charge. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.14,580/- under the said agreement for repairs and services to the said elevator for one year, there appears no much difficulty in appreciating the Ex A.1 as its contents speaks. The Ex A.2 is the letter dated 26.10.2004 of complainant to opposite party No.1 and marked a copy to opposite party No.2, it refers to the services carried out by the opposite parties to the said elevator and further submits the opposite parties irregularly carryout services once in 45 days or at time once into 2 months, which resulted in brake down and other problems in operating the said elevator and gives details of the opposite parties services to the said elevator and further requests to provided regularly monthly services at least from the receipt of this letter and alleges responsibility of opposite parties for any brake down due to their faulty services. The Ex A.4 is the lawyer’s notice dated 15.3.2005 issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties No.1 and 2 and same grievances such as default for services rendered to said elevator and as per agreement in Ex A.1the opposite parties did not provide regular services only 7 services are rendered during the said period instead of 12 services and for remaining services are not responding to the previous letter also and not keeping up the promise as per Ex A.1 and there by alleges deficiency of service on part of opposite parties and called upon to immediately attend the elevator by another 5 months and claims of Rs.500/- as costs of this notice. Ex A.3 dated 24.3.2005 is the reply of opposite party No.1 to the complainant’s advocate stating that they sought clarification from the Area office situated at Hyderabad and there letter revert back on hearing them. The facts so envisaged in Ex A.1 to A.4 and the complaint averments and the complainant’s sworn affidavit averments in reiteration of its case are neither denied nor rebutted by the opposite parties and hence there appears every bonafidies in the claim of the complainant.
7. In the present case the complainant alleges that only seven services are rendered to the said elevator instead of 12 services and inspite of repeated requests and written and personal representation the opposite parties did not provided services. The opposite parties did not rebut the said contentions of the complainant by placing any material on record in support of their case, therefore the said contentions of the complainant stands unrebutted. The opposite party No.1in their letter in Ex A.3 requested time for clarification and revert back, but thereafter there was no response from the opposite parties to the complainant.
8. Hence what appears from the material placed on record and taking into consideration the totality of facts, the opposite parties are deficiency of service in rendering services to the said elevator of complainant. As there is no denial to the claim of the complainant, it is remaining established that the opposite parties had not rendered services to the said elevator agreed as per Ex A.1. Thus, the said lapsive conduct of opposite parties is amounting to deficiency of service to the complainant and there by the complainant is entitled to reliefs sought.
9. The complainant sought too many reliefs in his complaint averments, but did not place any cogent relevant material substantiating the said reliefs. Hence the complainant is remaining entitled only to the cost of 5 services i.e Rs.6,075/-, and Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as costs of this complaint.
10. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.6,075/- as costs of 5 services, Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties are liable to pay the above award with 12% interest per annum from the date of said default.
Dictation to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us pronounced in the open court this the 22nd day of September, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant:-
Ex A.1 Comprehensive Maintenance Agreement entered between opposite party
No.1 and complainant dt 14.1.2004.
Ex A.2 Xerox copy of letter, dt 26.7.2004 of complainant addressed to opposite
Party No.2 copy marked to opposite party No.1.
Ex A.3 Xerox copy of reply by opposite party No.1, dt 24.3.2005 to the
Complainant’s counsel.
Ex A.4 Xerox coy of legal notice, dt 15.3.2005 issued by complainant’s counsel
To opposite party No.1 and 2.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties:-
-Nil-
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
1. Sri M. Sreenivasan, Advocate, Kurnool.
1. The Manager, M/s. Thyssen Krupp ECE Elevator (P )Ltd, No. 7/JK.III floor,
Shoukat Bldg, S.J.P. Road, Bangalore – 560 002.
2. The Branch Manager, M/s Thyseen Krupp ECE Elevator (P)Lt, Ground floor,
6-1-69-4-6 Public Garden Road, Saifabad Area, Hyderabad.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy delivered to parties:
