Complaint is filed on 23-4-2009
Compliant disposed on 17-6-2010
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM::AT:: KARIMNAGAR
PRESENT: HON’BLE SRI K. DEVI PRASAD, B.Sc., LL.B., PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT. E. LAXMI, M.A.LL.M.,PGDCA (Consumer Awareness), MEMBER
HON’BLE SRI. K. CHANDRA MOHAN RAO, B.Com ., LL.B., MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND TEN
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 79 OF 2009
Between:
V. Swarupa Rani, D/o. Rajamouli, Age 32 years, Occ: A.N.M. and House hold, R/o. H.No.3-6-285/2, Subashnagar, Karimnagar town and district.
… Complainant
AND
Hanuman Power Bikes, Rep. by it’s Proprietor, Door No.8-7-333/3, Near Hanuman Temple, Kothirampur, Karimnagar.
…Opposite Party
This complaint is coming up before us for final hearing on 21-5-2010, in the presence of Sri N. Parameshwar, Advocate for complainant, and opposite party, and on perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum passed the following:
:: ORDER::
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act 1986 seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.80,000/- along with costs of the complaint.
2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the opposite party is the authorized dealer for the sale of Yash-e-Bike Motor Cycle. On 7.6.2008 the complainant purchased the said Motor Cycle from the opposite party by paying Rs.29,500/-. At the time of delivery of the Motor Cycle the opposite party gave warranty for a period of 10 months for battery, charger, controller and Motor rear wheel. It was also informed to her that once the battery is fully charged it will run for 70 Kms. After using the vehicle for some time the complainant faced many problems and the battery was not giving consumption for 70 Kms and it was giving only 25 Kms for full charge of the battery. Therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party with her bike on 18.3.2009 informing about the problems faced by her. After inspecting the same the mechanic of the opposite party workshop certified that the full battery is giving consumption of 25 Kms only and informed that the battery will be sent to the manufacturer Cynosure Enterprises Limited, Nacharam, Hyderabad. But the opposite party failed to send the battery to them nor replace with a new one. Therefore, the complainant sent a notice to the opposite party on 2.4.2009 requesting them to replace the battery, inspite of service of notice the opposite party failed to replace the battery. Because of the defect in the battery she could not use the vehicle to attend her duties. Therefore, the complainant claimed an amount of Rs.80,000/-.
3. The opposite party submitted counter through letter Dt: 22.5.2009 stating that as per the Users Manual the complainant shall approach M/s. Cynosore Enterprises Limited, Nacharam, Hyderabad. When the complainant informed about the defect in the battery she was asked to send the same to Hyderabad, but she did not do so and filed this complaint. It is further submitted that he is not responsible for the defect in the battery, therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant filed her Proof Affidavit reiterating the averments made in the complaint and filed documents which are marked as Ex.A1 to A10. Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of letter sent to the Cynosure Enterprises Ltd, Hyderabad by the opposite party Dt: 18.3.2009. Ex.A2 is the Memo from the office of Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad addressed to Cynosure Enterprisers Ltd., Secunderabad Dt: 21.3.2006. Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of representation addressed to opposite party by complainant Dt; 2.4.2009. Ex.A4 is the DTDC Courier Receipt addressed to opposite party Dt: 3.4.2009. Ex.A5 is the Xerox copy of 8th & 7th Paid Coupon Service with Rs.125/-. Ex.A6 is the Xerox copy of Warranty/Guarantee Card. Ex.A7 is the Xerox copy of List of parts covered with Waranty/Guarantee. Ex.A8 is the Xerox copy of Cash/Credit Bill issued by opposite party in the name of complainant Dt: 7.6.2008. Ex.A9 is the original Cash Bill issued by Cynosure Enterprises Ltd., in the name of complainant Dt: 21.4.2009. Ex.A10 is the User Manual of Yash-e-Bike.
5. The opposite party filed Proof Affidavit by way of a letter Dt: 15.2.2010 and filed documents which are marked as Ex.B1 to B8. Ex.B1 is the Yash-e-Bike User Manual. Ex.B2 & A1 are one and the same documents. Ex.B3 to B6 are the Paid Coupon Service with Rs.125/-. Ex.B7 is the Xerox copy of Daily Delivery Statement Dt: 13.4.2009. Ex.B8 is the Xerox copy of letter from opposite party addressed to complainant Dt: 6.4.2009.
6. The points for consideration are:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
- If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
7. It is contended by the complainant that the battery filled to the Motor Bike sold by the opposite party is defective and sought for replacement, but the opposite party failed to do so and asked the complainant to approach the Manufacturer at Hyderabad. The complainant filed copies of the representation under Ex.A1 and A3. The vehicle was purchased for Rs.29,500/- under Ex.A8 Cash Bill Dt: 7.6.2008. When any defect is developed in the vehicle it is the duty of the opposite party to rectify the same as there is warranty given by them. Because of the defect in the vehicle complainant faced lot of problems and therefore prayed to allow the complaint.
8. It is contended by the opposite party that the complainant failed to send the battery to the manufacturer M/s. Cynosure Enterprises Limited, Hyderabad for replacement and that the said company is not made party to the complaint. The opposite party filed the User Manual under Ex.B1 and copy of the letter sent to the company under Ex.B2 and servicing record under Ex.B7. There is no deficiency of service on his part, hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. It is an admitted fact that the complainant purchased YASH DOCILE PLUS MOTOR BIKE from the opposite party for Rs.29,500/- on 7.6.2008 under ex.A8 Cash Bill. A perusal of the User’s Manual under Ex.A10 in the Warranty Clause at page no.4 it is mentioned that “CYNOSURE ENTERPRISES LTD will repair or replace at their authorized workshops free of charge within a period of one year from the date of sale of Yash Docile to the first owner. This one year warranty is applicable to the electronic parts such as THE MOTOR, CONTROLLER, BATTERY and CHARGER only subject to the conditions mentioned in the precautions of the owner’s manual”.
10. A perusal of letter under Ex.A3 it reveals that the complainant informed the opposite party about the defect in the battery. Prior to that when the complainant requested the opposite party to replace the battery it was sent for reconditioning to the manufacturer by the opposite party along with a letter Dt: 18.3.2009 under Ex.A1. The said letter clearly discloses that the complainant informed the opposite party about the defect in the battery and it was sent to the manufacturer. Having sold the Motor Bike it is the duty of the opposite party to provide quality product to the consumer. Admittedly some defect arose in the battery and the Motor Bike runs on the power stored in the battery as it is a electric bike. Without battery the vehicle cannot run and it is an important component of the vehicle. When a consumer made a complaint about the defect in the goods supplied by the opposite party, it is his duty to rectify the same and he cannot ask the consumer to approach the manufacturer.
11. The opposite party tried to deny the claim of the complainant that the warranty period already expired as it is for 10 months. Infact the manufacturer issued warranty for one year commencing from 7.6.2008 to 6.6.2009. The defect was developed in the battery during the period of warranty. The Motor Cycle was purchased by paying the price, since the opposite party is answerable for the claim made by the complainant. Inspite of repeated representations opposite party failed to rectify the defect by replacing the battery with new one, which constitutes deficiency of service. The complaint claimed for an order for payment of Rs.80,000/- but she failed to explain as to how she is entitled to claim such amount. It is pertinent to mention that the opposite party through letter Dt: 6.4.2009 vide Ex.A8 addressed to the complainant informed that the complainant neither herself send the battery to the Company nor handed over the battery to the opposite party for sending the same to the Company to replace with new battery. Thus there is also negligence on the part of the complainant in not handing over the battery to the opposite party for sending the same to the Company in order to replace it new battery. When the complainant brought the battery for checking and the Mechanic found on verification that the Motor Cycle was being run only 25 Kms., when the battery is fully charged. The opposite party failed to send the battery to the Company for replacement. It is also clear from the correspondence between the complainant and opposite party that the battery was not fit to make recondition. In view of the above said reasons, we hold, that there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in replacing the battery with a new one free of cost. Further in view of the negligence on the part of complainant in handing over the battery she is not entitled for damages from the opposite party. Further the claim of the complainant for Rs.80,000/- is dismissed. We direct the opposite party to replace the old battery with new battery.
12. In the result the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to replace the battery for the Motor Bike purchased by the complainant with a new one free of cost within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Since there is also negligence on the part of complainant, the complainant is not entitled for any damages and costs.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer after correction the orders pronounced by us in the open court this the 17th day of June, 2010.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
NO ORAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN ADDUCED ON EITHER SIDE
FOR COMPLAINANT:
Ex.A1 is the Xerox copy of letter sent to the Cynosure Enterprises Ltd, Hyderabad by the opposite party Dt: 18.3.2009.
Ex.A2 is the Memo from the office of Transport Commissioner, Hyderabad addressed to Cynosure Enterprisers Ltd., Secunderabad Dt: 21.3.2006.
Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of representation addressed to opposite party by complainant Dt; 2.4.2009.
Ex.A4 is the DTDC Courier Receipt addressed to opposite party Dt: 3.4.2009.
Ex.A5 is the Xerox copy of 8th & 7th Paid Coupon Service with Rs.125/-.
Ex.A6 is the Xerox copy of Warranty/Guarantee Card.
Ex.A7 is the Xerox copy of List of parts covered with Waranty/Guarantee.
Ex.A8 is the Xerox copy of Cash/Credit Bill issued by opposite party in the name of complainant Dt: 7.6.2008.
Ex.A9 is the original Cash Bill issued by Cynosure Enterprises Ltd., in the name of complainant Dt: 21.4.2009.
Ex.A10 is the User Manual of Yash-e-Bike.
FOR OPPOSITE PARTY:
Ex.B1 is the Yash-e-Bike User Manual.
Ex.B2 & A1 are one and the same documents.
Ex.B3 to B6 are the Paid Coupon Service with Rs.125/-.
Ex.B7 is the Xerox copy of Daily Delivery Statement Dt: 13.4.2009.
Ex.B8 is the Xerox copy of letter from opposite party addressed to complainant Dt: 6.4.2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
