This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, on 30-12-2008 in the presence of Sri.P.Ram Kishan Rao,Advocate for Complainant, and of Sri.B.Kalyan Rao, Advocate for the opposite party No-1&2 ; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
ORDER
(Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Member )
1. This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is doing hotel business under the name and style of Rama Mess at Trunk Road, Khammam town. The complainant purchased Sail 2HP motor 2 Nos, and 0.5HP motor 1 Nos. from the shop of the opposite party No-1 who is the authorized agent of the opposite partyNo-2 in the month of April 2005 by investing Rs.13,000/- . They worked up to the month of September, 2005 and after that they stopped working and immediately the complainant approached the shop of the opposite party No-1 and there one Satish Kumar, an employee of the service team of the opposite party No-2 advised the complainant to send the defective pieces to Vijayawada by transport and that they will effect repairs and return the pieces to the complainant.
Accordingly the complainant sent the defective 3 motors to the shop of the opposite partyNo-2 on 16-9-2005 through Navata Transport service and the same were received by the opposite party No-2 on 16-9-2005 through Navatha Transport Service. The complainant contacted both the opposite parties on telephone on several times but both the opposite parties gave reply that they will be sent in due course. The complainant approached the opposite party No-2 personally in the month of December, 2005 and requested to send the motors after effecting repairs, but the opposite party No-2 has not returned the same so far.
It is submitted that there is deficiency of service on both the opposite parties. The complainant suffered a lot of mental agony in making rounds here and there on several times and also suffered much inconvenience. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get damages to a tune of Rs.10,000/- from the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
Hence, direct the opposite parties (a) to return the sail 2HP motor 2 Nos, and 0.5HPmotor Nos. after effecting necessary repairs, to the complainant . (b) to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards damages for the deficiency of service. (c) to award costs of the complaint.
3. The complainant filed his affidavit along with the following documents:
Ex A1:Transport bill of Navatha dated 16-9-2005 Ex A2: Identity card of T.Satish Kumar service Team Suguna Motors.Ex A3: Legal notice issued to the opposite parties by the Advocate for complainant, dated18-9-2007 Ex A4: Acknowledgment of opposite party No-1.ExA5:Acknowledgement of opposite party No-2 Ex A6: Letter issued by opposite party No-2 to opposite party No-1.
4. Opposite party filed the following counter:
The complaint is frivolous in nature and not maintainable either in law or in facts. Complainant misrepresented the facts. Purchase of (3 No.s) motors by complainant for M/s. Rama Hotel, Khammam is for commercial purpose. The Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
Purchase of 2HP motors and (1 No.)0.5HP motors of SAER model in the month of April, 2005 for Rs.13,000/- is in correct. That the above motors were supplied in the year, 2002 guarantee period of one year also lapsed. However opposite party No-1 got repaired (2No.s) 2HP motors from their factory and forwarded to opposite party No-1, Rs.4,500/- was charged towards repair charges. Opposite party No-1 personally well acquainted to complainant. Out of such acquaintance and good faith, above (2No.s) 2H.P motors were delivered to complainant on his promise to pay repair charges of Rs.4,500/-. Another motor of 0.5HP was to be delivered. Taking undue advantage of non-obtaining of acknowledgement by opposite party No-1 for delivery of 2 motors and to evade repairing charges of Rs.4,500/-. The complainant filed this false case.
That the opposite parties are ready to return 0.5HP motor lying with them, and complainant is liable to pay repairing charges. It is pertinent that value of said 3 motors is Rs.7,800/- mentioned in way bill issued by M/s. Navatha Transport, Khammam as per self-declaration of complainant.
Hence, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the same.
5. Opposite parties filed the following documents:
Ex B1:A letter issued to opposite party No-1 by opposite party No-2, dated24-9-07.Ex B2: A letter issued by Postal department, dated18-2-2008.
6. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the claim as prayed for?
7. The main contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant is running a hotel and it is a commercial purpose. It is true that the complainant is running hotel but it is only mess. Hence we are of opinion that it is not at all of a commercial nature and it is only livelihood for the complainant.
8. It is the contention of the complainant that he purchased 3 motors from opposite parties in the month of April, 2005 for Rs.13,000/-. In the month of September, 2005 the above motors are stopped working and on the advise of employee of opposite party No-2, the complainant sent the defective pieces to opposite party No-2 on 16-9-2006 through Navatha Transport services. But the opposite parties did not repair the motors of the complainant. Hence this complaint. For which the contention of the opposite parties are that the above said 3 motors are sold in the year, 2002 and guarantee period of one year also lapsed. However two motors were repaired and charged Rs.4,500/- those two motors were handover to the complainant but they did not take any acknowledgement for that. The opposite parties are ready to return 0.5HP motor lying with them. It is also their contention that the above said motors cost is Rs.7,800/- mentioned in way bill issued by M/s. Navatha Transport, Khammam.
We have perused the documents filed by the complainant and opposite parties. Admittedly, the complainant did not file any purchase bill. Except his averment that he purchased for Rs.13,000/-. As per Ex A1 filed by the complainant the value of 3 motors mentioned as Rs.7,800/- and also it was mentioned that the said motors were sent to opposite party No-2 for repair purpose. Admittedly the complainant and as well as opposite parties did not file any documentary evidence to show that the complainant has received those two motors and so also the complainant paid the amount of repair charges Rs.4,500/- to the opposite parties. Hence, we are not inclined to grant any relief regarding those 2 HP two motors in No. Regarding the 3rd motor 0.5HP the opposite parties did not hand over to the complainant.
9. Hence, we direct the opposite parties to hand over the motor after repairs to the complainant or pay Rs.2,000/- towards approximate cost of that motor. However, we are not awarding any damages. Accordingly the C.C. is allowed. No costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Corrected and pronounced by us, in this Forum on this 28th day of January, 2009.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
Nil Nil
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant
Ex A1:Transport bill of Navatha dated 16-9-2005
Ex A2: Identity card of T.Satish Kumar service Team Suguna Motors.
Ex A3: Legal notice issued to the opposite parties by the Advocate for complainant, dated18-9-2007
Ex A4: Acknowledgment of opposite party No-1.
ExA5:Acknowledgement of opposite party No-2
Ex A6: Letter issued by opposite party No-2 to opposite party No-1.
Opposite parties
Ex B1:A letter issued to opposite party No-1 by opposite party No-2, dated24-9-07.
Ex B2: A letter issued by Postal department, dated18-2-2008.
President Member Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam
