C.C.No: 242/2008

BETWEEN:
Alhari Satya Prasad,
S/o Ramakrishnamacharyulu,
Thammavaram Post and Village,
Korisapadu Mandal,
Prakasam District. ... Complainant.

Vs.

1. M/s. Vijaya Value Electric Pvt.Ltd.,
10, Second Main Road,
Raja Annamalai Puram,
Chennai.

2. Authorized Signatory,
M/s. Vijaya Value Electric Pvt.Ltd.,
5-35, Kurnool Road, Opp. Lambadi Donka,
CSR Complex, Ongole. …Opposite parties.

COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: SRI B. LAKSHMI NARAYANA RAO,
ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

COUNSEL FOR OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1&2: SRI C.V. RAMI REDDY,
ADVOCATE, ONGOLE.

This complaint is coming on 03.03.2009 for final hearing before us and having stood over this day for consideration this Forum delivered the following:
ORDER:
1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 directing the opposite parties to replace the battery with new one in working condition by giving fresh warranty and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and for costs of the litigation.

2. The averments in the complaint are as follows: The complainant purchased Electric Scooter on 21.04.2008 for Rs.28,500/- from the 2nd opposite party. 3 months after purchase, the battery is not charging properly even though the complainant was charging the battery as per the instructions given in the booklet, since then the complainant is requesting the 2nd opposite party to check the battery and inspite of his requests the 2nd opposite party is not able to rectify the defect in the battery. Finally 2nd opposite party stated that the battery is to be replaced while admitting the manufacturing defects in the battery. The 2nd opposite party promised to replace the battery with new one and wrote a letter to the 1st opposite party for permission to replace the battery. Thereafter there is no response from the opposite parties. The complainant issued legal notice dated 04.10.2008 calling upon the opposite parties to replace the battery with new one. The 2nd opposite party managed to return the said notice without service. Due to the illegal and unlawful acts of the opposite party the complainant suffered lot of mental agony. Now the vehicle is kept idle without any use because it runs on battery. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.

4. The opposite parties filed their counter contending as fallows: It is true that the complainant purchased the vehicle from the 2nd opposite party. At the time of purchase of the vehicle the 2nd opposite party had clearly explained and demonstrated as to how the scooter was to be maintained and as to how the battery has to be charged. Owner’s manual was also supplied to the complainant giving specific instructions as to how the scooter was to be maintained. The 2nd opposite party also informed the complainant about the warranty conditions and asked the complainant to bring the scooter for servicing regularly up to period of 5 months from the date of sale. But the complainant never brought the scooter for servicing as advised and not maintained the scooter properly. The complainant never approached the 2nd opposite party for the purpose of checking the battery. The complainant created false allegations against the opposite parties and filed the complaint. The complainant issued legal notice on 04.10.2008 and it was received by the 1st opposite party on 10.10.2008. The complainant without waiting for 15 days filed the complaint to obtain wrongful gain. There is no manufacturing defect in the battery. The opposite parties are not liable for any defects in the scooter since it is due to the negligent use of the scooter by the complainant. For the foregoing reasons the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

5. On behalf of the complainant Exs.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. The Ex.A1 is the Owners/users manual. Ex.A2 is the Original Invoice dated 21.04.2008 bearing No.B.A.019/08-09 relating to the vehicle. Ex.A3 is the Duplicate Invoice dated 21.04.2008 bearing No.B.A.019/08-09 relating to the vehicle. Ex.A4 is the Lawyer Notice dated 04.10.2008. Ex.A5 is the Returned notice of O.P.2. No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

6. The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs in the complaint.

7. The case of the complainant is that he purchased Electric Scooter from the 2nd opposite party who is the authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party manufacturer for Rs.28,500/- on 21.04.2008. The complainant was taking the vehicle for servicing regularly. 3 months after purchase the battery was not charging properly though he was charging as per the instructions given in the booklet. It is due to manufacturing defects in the battery. The warranty period is 6 months for the battery. Inspite of notice the opposite parties fail to replace the battery with new one. Hence, he filed the complaint.

8. The learned counsel for the opposite parties argued that there is no mention in the complaint that the vehicle was taken to 2nd opposite party for servicing and after the opposite parties filed counter, the complainant manufactured dealers seal and affixed the same on the service coupens as if he produced the vehicle for checkup to over come the allegations in the counter. He further argued that the complainant issued notice to the opposite parties on 04.10.2008 and it was received by the 1st opposite party on 10.10.2008 without waiting for 15 days he filed the case on 17.10.2008 which is pre mature and on this ground the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

9. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that notice was sent to the local dealer on 04.10.2008 and it was returned un served on 14.10.2008. There is no other go for the complainant except to file the case on 17.10.2008 and it is not pre mature. So far as, alleged fake seal is concerned the opposite parties are at liberty to take action against the complainant.

10. Admittedly, the warranty for the battery is 6 months. As per the service coupens the complainant was taken the vehicle for servicing and the 3rd service was on 22.08.2008. According to the complainant till that date there was no problem in the battery and it was working properly. There is no evidence that there after the complainant was taking the vehicle to the dealer for checkup. The complainant without taking the vehicle for checkup for 4th and 5th service filed the case on 17.10.2008 after issuing notice on 04.10.2008 since the warranty period is going to expire. As already stated there is no evidence that the complainant took the vehicle to the dealer and complained to him about non charging of the battery. If really the vehicle was taken to the dealer for checkup he would have complained to the dealer about non charging of the battery and the same would be mentioned in the job card and also in the copy supplied to the customer showing the particulars of the repairs carried. The complainant did not choose to produce copy of the job card. It means after 22.08.2008 he did not take the vehicle to the dealer for checkup since warranty period is going to expire and in order to get new battery and fresh warranty the complainant filed the present complaint. The circumstances goes to show that due to improper maintenance of the vehicle the battery was not charging properly and for that the dealer cannot be held responsible. There are no merits in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

11. In the result, the petition is dismissed without costs.