Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/16/2015

K.N. Gundala Naidu, S/o. Rama Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor, Royal Motors - Opp.Party(s)

G.Ramaiah Pillai

23 Dec 2015

ORDER

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Filing Date:06.04.2015

Order Date: 23.12.2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

 

C.C.No.16/2015

 

Between

 

K.N. Gundala Naidu, S/o. Rama Naidu,

Hindu, aged 52 years, Residing at D.No.1-20,

Thimminaidupalem Village, Tirupati Urban Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                            … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

1.The Proprietor, Royal Motors,

D.No. 11-23-1, Renigunta Road,

Near Cotton Mills, Tirupati,

Chittoor District.

 

2. Sonalika International Tractors Ltd.,

Rep. by its Managing Director,

Village Chak Gujran (Po),

Piplan Wala, Jalandhar Road,

Hoshiharpur, Punjab State.                                                             …Opposite parties.

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 09.12.2015 and upon perusing the complaint, Written arguments of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of  Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, Sri.I.Surendra are counsels for the complainant, and  Sri.G.Guru Prasad counsel for the opposite party no.2 and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following:-

                                                           ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of the C.P. Act 1986, complaining the deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties and prayed this forum to direct the opposite parties to replace the tractor with new one and hand over the same to the complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) for causing mental agony and for hardship and also Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards cost of the litigation.

           2. The averments of the complaint in brief are:-   The complainant who is an unemployee intended to purchase a tractor to earn his livelihood under self employment. In that connection he contacted the opposite party no.1 who is the dealer of opposite party no.2 the manufacturer of the Sonalika International. The complainant further submits that he purchased Sonalika D1 35 tractor bearing registration no.AP-03/ TB-9712 from the opposite party no.1 on 20.06.2014 along with warranty of 18 months for Rs.5,00,000/- ( rupees five lakhs only). Since the date of purchase, the complainant is used the tractor for supply of drinking water and he earned not less than 2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) per day which is primary income source for his family needs. At the time of purchase the opposite party no.1 stated that the said tractor engine will give mileage of 15Kms per liter, but the said tractor is giving 7Kms to 8Kms per liter and also engine pump is not working properly. Gradually the mileage decreased to 5 Kms per liter. Hence the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 for the service of the vehicle. Even after service the opposite party no.1 failed to rectify the defects. Finally, the complainant approached the opposite party no.1 on October 2014 and handed over the vehicle for repair to opposite party no.1. After several requests made by the complainant the opposite party failed to rectify the defect and return the vehicle with good condition, even though the warranty period is subsisting. Hence because of the negligent attitude of the opposite party, the complainant lost income of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) per day. Finally he issued legal notice on 16.10.2014 calling upon the opposite parties either to rectify the defect or to replace the tractor with a new one. After receipt of the said notice the opposite party no.1 gave reply notice on 30.10.2014 with all false allegations. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint.

          3. Notices were issued to both the opposite parties 1&2 and same was served. The opposite party no.1 after receipt of the notice fails to appear before this Forum called absent and set exparte. One  Sri. G. Guru Prasad, advocate filed vakalath on behalf of the opposite party no.2 and filed written version, chief affidavit and written arguments. But later the counsel for the complainant filed memo that they not pressed the claim against the opposite party no.2. Hence the claim against opposite party no.2 is dismissed as not pressed.

          4.  The complainant filed his chief affidavit and got marked Ex. A1 to A7,on behalf of the complainant, written arguments were filed and we have heard the oral arguments, now the points for consideration are:

            (i). Whether there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite party no.1     

                 towards the complainant?

            (ii). Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If So?

           (iii)  To what  result?

           5. Point No.(i):-  There is no dispute regarding the purchase of the tractor by the complainant from opposite party no.1 on 20.06.2014 for  Rs.5,00,000/- (rupees five lakhs only) and also the purchase of water tanktrailer of Rs.50,000/- on 21.06.2014 in order to prove his contention he filed Ex.A1 i.e. invoice of the said tractor and tanker. But as per the contention of the complainant that the opposite party no.1assured that the said tractor will give mileage of 15kms per liter, but it gives only 5kms per liter and same was informed to the opposite party no.1 the opposite party after thorough checking of the tractor informed that it will give 7-8 kms per liter, but none of their versions that the said tractor will give 15kms per liter or 7-8 kms per liter is correct because it gives only 5kms per liter.  The complainant further contended that the said tractor is handed over to the opposite party no.1 for the rectification of the problem of mileage, engine sound etc but opposite party no.1 failed to rectify the same. He approached the opposite party no.1 for several times for getting it repaired, but the opposite party no.1 did not rendered their service properly by rectifying defect or repairing the tractor. At last finally on October 2014, the complainant has handed over the said tractor to the opposite party no.1 for the service of the tractor and to rectify the defects mentioned in the job card that is Ex.A4.  But till now the defects are not rectified and the tractor is still with the opposite party no.1. If the repairs are simple they might have rectify and return to the complainant in time but they and failed to rectify the defects and sent the reply notice dated 30.10.2014 that is Ex.A6 and insisted the complainant to take away the vehicle from their garage, otherwise they will claim parking charges Rs. 170/- per day otherwise they will throw away the vehicle which is nothing but unfair trade practice.  It clearly shows that the opposite party no.1 miserably failed to repair the tractor till today.

          6. After receipt of the notice of the complainant the opposite party failed to handed over the tractor till today. In fact the opposite party no.1 failed to appear before this Forum and challenge the contentions of the complainant.  Hence the contention of the complainant remains unchallenged. If at all there is no latches on their part they will appear before this Forum and proved their bonafides. Hence it clearly shows that there is deficiency of service on part of the opposite party no.1. The interest shown by the opposite party no.1 while promoting their sales is not shown at the time of rendering their services to their customer, which is nothing but unfair trade practice. Hence this Forum is of the opinion to some extent there is some deficiency of service on part of the opposite party no.1.

          7. Point No.(ii):-   The complainant  prayed this Forum to pass an award in favour of the him against the opposite parties and directing them to replace the Sonalika D1 35 tractor with a new one. But without establishing the manufacturing defect the complainant is not entitled for the replacement of the tractor because in this case the manufacturer who is opposite party no.2 is no long as a party as the complainant filed the memo by not pressing the claim against the opposite party no.2 who is the manufacturer. Hence the complainant is not entitled for replacement of the tractor with new one. The opposite party no.1 failed to take any steps to repair the vehicle and conduct the service properly. Hence the opposite party no.1 is directed to carry out the repairs in the tractor and handed over the same to the complainant in road worthy condition. The complainant asked a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation, at any rate the complainant contended that he lost income of Rs.2,000/- per day because of inaction of the opposite party no.1 he sustained heavy loss and mental agony. Because the said tractor was handed over to the opposite party no.1 in the month of October 2014 till today it was in the custody of opposite party no.1 which is nearly 14 months. Hence we cannot measure the compensation in terms of money for the mental agony he suffered. Hence it is appropriate to grant compensation of Rs.50,000/- ( rupees fifty thousand only) for mental agony and deficiency of service on  part of the opposite party no.1. Hence this point is answered accordingly.

          8. Point No.(iii):-  In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party no.1 to carry out the necessary repairs for the tractor and handed over the tractor bearing registration no. AP-03/TB-9712 to the complainant in road worthy condition.The opposite party no.1 further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-( rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) towards  costs of the litigation. The opposite party no.1 further directed to comply with the order within six(6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, the compensation amount Rs.50,000/-( rupees fifty thousand only) shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization.  The claim against opposite party no.2 is dismissed as not pressed by the complainant.

              Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 23^rd day of December, 2015.

        Sd/-                                                                                                            Sd/-

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1:Kandula Gundala Naidu  (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

RW-1: Malkiat Singh (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Photo copy of Invoice towards vehicle issued by the Opposite Parties to the complainant for Rs.5,00,000/-. Dt: 20.06.2014.
	Photo copy of Insurance policy of the vehicle insured by the L & T Insurance Company to the complainant’s vehicle. Dt: 19.06.2014.
	Photo copy of Registration Certificate of the Vehicle Dt: 02.07.2014.
	Job card (Original) issued by the Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant. Dt: 29.09.2014.
	Office copy of the legal notice on behalf of the complainant with postal receipts. Dt: 16.10.2014.
	Reply notice issued by the Opposite Party No.1 to the complainant. Dt: 30.10.2014.
	Copy of Warranty Conditions.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

-NIL-                                                                                                                                                                             

                Sd/-                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                                              President

 

 

// TRUE COPY //

 

// BY ORDER //

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                                  Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati

 

Copies to:- 1. The Complainant.

                   2. The opposite parties.