BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, B.Com B.L., President
And
Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member
And
Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member
Thursday the 6th day of September, 2012
C.C.No.140/2010
Between:
K.Narasimhudu, S/o K.Narayana,
H.No.77-913, Mujafar Nagar, Kurnool, Kurnool District – 518 002.
…Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Manager,City e bike Service Centre,
24-92/3, IDA Uppal, Hyderabad - 500 039.
2. V.M.Kiran Kumar, Proprietor, V.M. Motors,
69/23-3, Near King Market, Kurnool - 518 001.
...Opposite ParTies
.
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and In person for opposite party No.1 and Sri.M.Sivaji Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Sri. Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, Male Member) C.C. No.140/2010
1. This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 praying:-
(a) To direct the opposite parties to return to price of electric bike Rs.33,000/- with interest from the date of purchase of vehicle i.e. 03-07-2009 till the date of realization;
OR
To replace the new electric bike in similar model without any defect;
(b) To grant a sum of RS. 20,000/- towards mental agony;
(c) To grant the cost of the complaint;
And
- To grant any other relief as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstance of the case.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is as under:- The complainant purchased City e-bike from opposite party No.2 for Rs.33,000/- on 03-07-2009. The warranty period is one year. A few days after its purchase the vehicle failed to function. The complainant handed over the vehicle to opposite party No.2 to rectify the defects. A few days after rectification of defects, the vehicle failed to function. The complainant came to know through opposite parties machanics that the components of the vehicle are foreign made and they should not be meddled with. The complainant demanded opposite party No.2 for return of the money. Opposite party No.2 refused for it and stated that the vehicle once sold cannot be taken back. The complainant came to know that all the City e-bikes are having manufacturing defects. Opposite party No.2 closed his show room at Kurnool due to failure of vehicles. The complainant handed over the vehicle to opposite party No.1 who is the manufacturer by spending Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges. On 18-05-2010 an amount of Rs.2,500/- was collected by opposite party No.1. Within 2 days thereafter the battery of the vehicle failed. The opposite parties sold the defective vehicle to the complainant. Hence the complaint.
3. Opposite party No.1 filed written version sating that the opposite party No.1 is merely a work shop for servicing and maintenance of City e-bike and other Electric Bikes and not the “manufacturer” of City e-bikes. City e-bikes are manufactured by M/s Xindayang Electrical & Machinery Company Limited, China. The opposite party No.1 supposed to give service to the City e-bikes users. The complainant never handed over his vehicle to opposite party No.1 at any point of time. Opposite party No.1 is not liable to pay any amount to the complainant as it is not the manufacturer of the vehicle purchased by the complainant.
Opposite party No.2 filed counter stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is having knowledge that e-bike is foreign made and it should not be driven in water. The vehicle has to be serviced every month, if not the guarantee of the bike will be ceased. The complainant is residing at Pandipadu Village of Kallur Mandalam. He has to go in water and mud to reach his Village. At no point of time the complainant gave his vehicle for service. Due to the use of vehicle in water and mud the controller of the vehicle was burnt. The complainant purchased the controller of the vehicle and got it fixed to his vehicle. The complainant committed breach of the conditions and guarantee. It is only the first opposite party who is liable. Opposite party No.2 is not at all liable. The present complaint is filed to harass the opposite party and to gain wrongfully. No document is filed by the complainant to prove that he approached opposite party No.1 for repairs. Opposite party No.2 is not liable for any loss sustained by the complainant. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A5 are marked and sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 and 2 Ex.B1 to B6 are marked and sworn affidavits of opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed.
5. Both sides filed written arguments.
6. The points that arise for consideration are:
- Whether there is manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?
- To What relief?
7. POINT No.1 & 2: Admittedly the complainant purchased city e-bike from opposite party No.2 on 03-07-2009 for Rs.33,000/- Ex.A1 is the invoice issued by opposite party No.2. It is the case of the complainant that immediately after purchase the vehicle gave trouble due to manufacturing defects. As seen from Ex.A2 dated 25-11-2009 it is very clear that controller was replaced under warranty on 25-11-2009 by opposite party No.1. It is also the case of the complainant that subsequent to 25-11-2009 also the vehicle gave trouble and that opposite party No.1 charged Rs.2,500/- for replacement of the controller Ex.A5 is the estimate given by opposite party No.1 for Rs.2,500/-. Ex.A5 is dated 18-05-2010. From the documentary evidence produced by the complainant it is very clear that the vehicle purchased by him gave trouble. It is the case of the complainant that the vehicle gave trouble due to manufacturing defects. According to opposite parties the complainant used the vehicle in water and as a result the controller of the vehicle was burnt. There is no satisfactory evidence to show that the complainant drove the vehicle in water and as a result the controller of the vehicle was burnt. The evidence available on record goes to show that the vehicle purchased by the complainant started giving trouble immediately after its purchase. Merely because the vehicle gave trouble it cannot be presumed that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle. There is no expert evidence on record to show that the vehicle gave trouble due to the manufacturing defects. In the absence of the expert evidence it cannot be said that there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by the complainant. The complainant did not place any satisfactory evidence on record to show that the opposite party No.1 was manufacturer of the vehicle purchased by him. It is the contention of the opposite party No.1 that City e-bike Service Centre is a workshop for servicing and maintenance of City e-bikes and that the vehicle of the complainant was manufactured by M/s Xindayang Electrical & Machinery Company Limited, China. Opposite party No.1 in support of its contention relied on Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. They go to show that Model City e-bike is manufactured by M/s Xindayang Group Company Limited, China. Admittedly M/s Xindayang Electrical & Machinery Company Limited, China which manufactured the City e-bikes purchased by the complainant is not added as opposite party No.1. In a decision reported in I (2012) CPJ 110 (NC) it was held that for any manufacturing defect in product it is manufacturer who could be held liable. Admittedly the manufacturer of the vehicle purchased by the complainant is not a party in the present compliant. Opposite party No.1 is only a Servicing Centre. Opposite party No.1 supplied the vehicle to opposite party No.2. Opposite party No.2 being the dealer cannot be made liable for the loss sustained by the complainant. The complainant failed to establish there was manufacturing defect in the vehicle purchased by him from opposite party No.2. The manufacturer of the vehicle is a necessary and a proper party. No deficiency of service is found on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore the opposite parties 1 and 2 cannot be held responsible. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.
8. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 6th day of September, 2012.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant : Nill For the opposite parties : Nill
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Bill of city e-bike V.M.Motors, Kurnool, dated 3-7-2009
for Rs.3300/-.
Ex.A2 Photo copy of Delivery challan of City e-bike, Battery Bikes,
Hyderabad, dated 25-11-209.
Ex.A3 Photo copy of Estimate of City e-bike service center,
Hyderabad, dated 18-5-2010.
Ex.A4 Photo copy of warranty card.
Ex.A5 Estimate of City e-bike service center, Hyderabad,
Dated 18-5-2010, for Rs.2500/-.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-
Ex.B1 Photo copy of Certificate of EMC Compliance
dated 03-09-2004.
Ex.B2 Photo copy of Certificate for China Compulsory Product
Certification dated 02-08-2006.
Ex.B3 Photo copy of Quality System Certificate dated 17-11-2005.
Ex.B4 Photo copy of Test Report issued by ARAI
dated 17-04-2007.
Ex.B5 Photo copy of Hindu Daily Edition Paper.
Ex.B6 City e-bike owner’s manual.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MALE MEMBER PRESIDENT LADY MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the
A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
