BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMER FORUM-II:: VIJAYAWADA KRISHNA DISTRICT.
Present: Dr. Sri T. Rama Raju, B.A., (Litt.) B.L.,
Sri B. Srinivasu, L.C.E., B.A., B.L., Member.
Ayurveda Bhishak & Vydya Vidwan, President
Thursday, the 26th day of March, 2009.
Date of filing: 11.11.2008.
Dr. Pallem Peddeswara Rao, C/o Heart Care Centre, Suryaraopet, Vijayawada Krishna District.
1. Keseas Fitness Shoppe, rep. By its authorized signatory, Dr.No.40-1-6A, Near
Tipsy Topsy, M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 10.
2. Asian Sky Shop, rep. By its authorized signatory, Prasad Industrial Estate,
D-Wing, 103-105, Survey No.2&66, Sativali, Vasai Kaman Road, Vasai (E),
Dist. Thane – 401 202.
…. Opposite parties.
This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 25.03.2009 in the presence of Sri P. Chitti Babu,
advocate for complainant, and the opposite parties remained ex-parte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum doth order the following:
This complaint is under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
1. The averments of the complaint as narrated by the complainant in brief are as follows:
That the complainant is a resident of Vijayawada City so also the 1st opposite party is stationed in Vijayawada City and the 2nd opposite party is stationed in Vasai, Thane District. The complainant in exchange purchased a Treadmill machine from the 1st opposite party after paying an amount of Rs.28,000/- apart from exchange amount of Rs.12,000/-, total Rs.40,000/- and the same was installed at his house. From the beginning of its use, the said machine gave trouble. So, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party many a time and at last the 1st opposite party took the machine to their shop for rectification, but failed to rectify the defects of the treadmill machine and the mechanics stated that the machine is having patent defects. So, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 27.10.2008, though received the opposite parties, and kept mum. As all the efforts of the complainant became futile in rectifying the defects of the treadmill machine, and hence, the complaint.
2. After registering the complaint, notices were sent to the opposite parties, though received the opposite parties failed to represent and so, they were set ex-parte.
3. On behalf of the complainant the complainant himself filed an affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A4.
4. Heard and Perused.
5. Now the points that arise for consideration in this complaint are;
1.Whether the treadmill machine supplied to the complainant by the opposite parties is a defective one?
2.Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
3.Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
6. PIONT Nos.1&2: As could be seen from the material on hand, the complainant had an earlier treadmill machine and it was an old one. So, the complainant intended to purchase a new one or to exchange the same, while so the 1st opposite party approached the complainant. Thereafter, the 1st opposite party assessed the value of the old machine at Rs.12,000/- and received Rs.28,000/- and installed new treadmill machine in the house of the complainant vide Ex.A1. During the course of its use, the machine gave trouble so, the complainant approached the 1st opposite party for rectifying the defects of the machine and at last the 1st opposite party took the machine to their shop for rectification but failed to rectify the defects of the machine. So, the complainant waited and waited and in vain and at last he got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties under Ex.A2 and the 1st opposite party received under Ex.A4, but no reply. As all the efforts of the complainant became futile in rectifying defects of the treadmill machine so, he filed this complaint before this Forum. After registering the complaint, notices were served to the opposite parties, but they failed to contest and remained ex-parte and the reasons best-known to them only. Basing on that the learned counsel for the complainant contended that the opposite parties knows about the defects of the machine but failed to respond and rectify the defects, that means, the machine is having patent defects so also latent defects, may be true? If not? What prevented the 1st opposite party not to contest the matter or even to reply though received the legal notice and also notices of this forum though residing in Vijayawada city itself. So, the acts of the opposite parties clinchingly show that the machine supplied to the complainant is a defective one since there is no rebuttal evidence what so ever. Furthermore, the opposite parties failed to rectify the defects and also failed to respond even to the legal notice (Ex.A2). As such, the acts of the opposite parties clearly falls within the purview of deficiency in service. So, no need to discuss any more and accordingly these points are answered.
7. PIONT NO.3: In view of our findings in point nos.1&2 that the 1st opposite party supplied a defective treadmill machine to the complainant and thereafter failed to rectify the defects of the machine and also failed to answer to the legal notice and also to the case (C.C. in hand) that means, the allegations leveled against opposite parties are all true and so, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed.
8. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the 1st opposite party is hereby directed to install new defective free treadmill machine in lieu of the old defective treadmill machine, which is now with opposite party no.1 or in the alternative pay its value (Rs.40,000) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till payment and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only to the complainant towards costs each Rs.1,000/- (One thousand) only. Rest of the claim if any claimed by complainant is rejected. Time for compliance one month. The 1st opposite party is at liberty to get a new treadmill machine of same quality and make from its manufacturer i.e., from the 2nd opposite party after complying this order.