BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna  Reddy , M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

Thursday the 04^th day of November , 2010

C.C.No 60/10

Between:

M.V.Sunkanna, S/o. Late Nadipi Sesanna,

Advocate, R/o. H.No. 49-50A-87-17, Lakshmi Nagar, Kurnool-518002.

                                 .…Complainant

-Vs-

V.M.Motors, Rep. by its Proprietor,

V.M.Kiran, S/o Suri Singh, H.No.65-29,Subedar Street,Fort, Kurnool-518 001.                           

….…Opposite  Party

                        This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri. D. Narendra Reddy, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

C.C. No. 60/10

1. This complaint is filed under section 11 & 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OPs

1. to change the batteries with the suitable capacity or to return

the costs of Rs.8,000/-  

1. to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for

causing mental agony  and hardship   

1. to pay the costs of the complaint,
2. any other orders which are deemed to be fit and proper in the

circumstances of the case.

(2)   The case of the complainant is as follows:- On 29-12-2007 the complainant purchased one Hero Ultra Velociti Scooter which will run with the help of four batteries of 24 AH. After charging the batteries the vehicle as to run with a mileage of 50 KM per charge. The said scooter was purchased from Avani Energy Motor, Kurnool. After the purchase of the vehicle Avani Energy Motor, kurnool was closed. On 23-07-2009 the complainant approached the OP to fix suitable batteries to the vehicle. On 03-08-2009 OP fitted four batteries and assured that the vehicle give 50 kms for charge. OP also informed that the warranty is 12 months. The OP gave invoice bearing No. 17 for Rs.8,120/-. Thereafter the complainant used the vehicle and found it was not giving the assured 50 kms per charge. The complainant questioned the OP about the low mileage. The OP informed that the vehicle is fitted with three numbers of 18 AH and another china made battery of 20 AH. The OP knowing fully that 24 AH batteries are alone suitable as fixed 18 AH and 20 AH batteries. On 25-11-2009 the complainant met the OP and requested to replace the batteries. The OP refused for the same. The OP knowingly fitted low power batteries and committed deficiency of service.  The complainant got issued legal notice on 21-01-2010. OP received the said notice. No reply was given. Hence the complaint.       

3.     OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint approached the OP for servicing of his vehicle. The OP advised the complainant to approach the service centre from where he purchased the vehicle. The complainant purchased a charger on 18-07-2009 under receipt No. 16. In the said receipt it is mentioned that there is no guarantee or warranty for the charger purchased. On 03-08-2009 the complainant purchased batteries under receipt No. 17 knowing the fact that there is no guarantee or warranty for the said batteries. The OP informed the complainant that there is a motor controller default  in the byke of the complainant and that the company batteries fitted   in the said vehicle will fail. There is no negligence on the part of the OP. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

  4.   On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 to A4 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite party Ex.B1 is  marked and the sworn affidavit of OP is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are      

(i)     whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP ?

(ii)    whether the  complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?

(iv)   To what relief?

7. Point No.1 & 2:  The complainant purchased Hero Ultra Velociti Scooter on 29-12-2007 from Avani Energy Motor, Kurnool is not under dispute. It is mentioned in Ex.A1 that the said vehicle runs at 50 Km per charge. It is the case of the complainant that on 03-08-2009 he purchased four batteries from the OP to fit them in his vehicle. Ex.A2 is the invoice dated 03-08-2009 showing the purchase of four batteries of 18 AH from the OP for Rs.8,120/- . The OP has admitted that the complainant purchased the batteries from him under Ex.A2 invoice on 03-08-2009 .   

8.     It is the case of the complainant that the OP knowing fully that the vehicle runs only on 24 AH batteries fitted it with three -18 AH batteries and another battery of 20 AH. It is further case of the complainant that on account of fitting of low power batteries the vehicle is running only 10 Kms per charge. Except the affidavit evidence of the complainant there is no evidence on record to show that the OP knowing fully that 18 AH batteries are not suitable to the vehicle of the complainant made the complainant to purchase  18.AH batteries . It is not know whether the vehicle has run 50 Km or 10 Kms per charge. It is the case of the OP that there is a defect in the bike and that any type of batteries fitted in the said vehicle would       fail. According to the complainant he purchased the vehicle in the year 2007. In Ex.A2 there is no mention that there is warranty for 12 months for the batteries sold by OP to the complainant. As seen from Ex.A2 it is very clear that the complainant purchased four batteries of 18 AH . There is also no evidence to come to the conclusion that 18 AH batteries are not suitable to the vehicle of the complainant. Merely because  the OP did not give any reply for the notice got issued by the complainant  , the OP can not be compelled to replace the batteries . It is not shown by the complainant that there is defect in the batteries sold by the OP. For the low mileage of the vehicle the OP can not be held responsible. It is not the case of the complainant that the OP adopted unfair trade practice. No deficiency of service is found on the part of the OP and the complainant  is not entitled  to the reliefs as prayed for.           

9. Point No3:  In the result the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances no costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 04^th day of November, 2010.

          Sd/-                                                                Sd/-

     MALE MEMBER                                                    PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil            For the opposite parties : Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1                Hero Ultra Velaciti Particulars

Ex.A2.       Invoice bearing NO.17 dt.03-08-2009 issued by the opposite party for Rs.8120/-

Ex.A3.       Photo copy of Legal Notice dt.21-01-2010

Ex.A4.       Postal enquiry particulars.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:

Ex.B1.       Office copy of Invoice NO.16 dt.18-07-2009, for Rs.1410/-.

                  Sd/-                                                                        Sd/-

         MALE MEMBER                                                                    PRESIDENT

// 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   :