LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Matha Sri Venkata Ramana CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.18/2008.Between:Friday, the 17th day of April, 2009.
Tenneti Kameswara Sastry,
S/o. Annavadhanulu, Hindu,
61 years, D.No.17-30-14,
Zamindar Metta, Sriram Nagar,
Rajahmundry -533 105. ...Complainant.
A N D
1. M/s. Matha Sri Venkata Ramana, E-Bikes,
Rep. By its Manager, D.No.77-8-4,
Yuvaraj Soudha, RTC Complex,
Near Rama Krishna Theatre,
Rajahmundry, E.G.District.
2. M/s. Cynosure Enterprises Limited,
Rep. By its Marketing Managing,
Block-II, A-28/1/11B, Nacharam,
Hyderabad – 501 507. … Opposite parties.
This case is coming 20.03.2009 for final hearing before this Forum and upon perusing the complaint, version of the opposite parties and other material papers on hand and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D.V.K.Ramesh, advocate for the complainant and Sri G.Srinivasulu Reddy, advocate for the Opposite party 2 and opposite party 1 set exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum has pronounced the following.
ORDER
(PER SRI A. MADHUSUDANA RAO, MEMBER)
This is a complaint filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the consumer Protections Act to direct the opposite parties to replace the vehicle or refund the amount of Rs.27,500/- and Rs.1,000/- towards accessories, Rs.500/- towards correspondence etc Rs.1,000/- towards costs and other reliefs.
2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is that the complainant purchased a battery operated “YASH DOCILE” two wheeler E bike model No.TDP 3222 from the opposite parties on 15.12.2006 for Rs.27,500/- under bill No.46, Dt.15.12.2006 and paid another Rs.1,000/- towards accessories. The opposite parties issued a warranty for 12 months for the battery and the motor. As the battery ceased charging from July, 2007 and the complainant lodged a complaint with the 1st opposite party on 16.8.2007 and the same was replaced with a new battery. Even the replaced battery also did not properly charging and it was running for 10 to 12 Kms only against the promise of 60 Kms. The motor also ceased functioning within 10 months and a complaint was lodged on 14.11.2007 and the same was temporarily got repaired by the opposite parties. On that the complainant addressed two letters on 26.8.2006 and on 4.9.2007 to the opposite parties, but there was no response. The 1st opposite parties shifted the shop from Rajahmundry to Kakinada and hence the complaint was put doldrums as to seek the remedy for the technical problems. As the motor and battery did not function properly the complainant sustained loss and approached the Parishkruthi, Consumer Welfare Organisation and issued notice, but there was no response. The acts on the part of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, this complaint.
3. The 1st opposite party called absent and set exparte and the 2nd opposite party filed their version denying all the main and material allegations made in the complaint. The 2nd opposite party submitted that Yash E bikes are battery operated two wheeler that have been certified by the ARAI, Pune which is an autonomous body to determine the worthiness of any vehicle and all the bikes are sold as per the design and certification by ARAI. It is further submitted that it is true that the complainant purchased Yash Dosile E Bike from the dealer of this opposite party in Rajahmudry on 15.12.2006 and the same was supplied to the dealer after thorough inspection and verification. It is further submitted that the company supplies user manual to its customers which contains warranty/guarantee along with the conditions applicable. The said warranty applies to only four main parts i.e battery, controller, motor and charger. The charger is not part of the vehicle and it is given for the purpose of charging the battery.
It was further submitted that in the user manual there are three free service coupons and five paid service coupons and it is mandatory that the customer should use this coupons, further in the event of failure to use the coupons by the customer neither the manufacturer nor the dealer is liable for any damage caused to grunted parts. It was worth mentioned here that the complainant used the vehicle for more than one and half years as such if the bike had any manufacturing defect, the bike would not run for any distance. It is further submitted that the warranted parts will be replaced immediately if the same were failed and the complainant at no point of time made any complaint regarding the failure of the parts to this 2nd opposite part to this 2nd opposite party. It is further submitted that it is a fact of repair and replacement of guarantee parts within warrantee period and this company not charged anything for accessories. It appears that the complainant did not charge the battery properly after replacement. It is further submitted that the main components of the bike are imported from China and after thorough verification they are assembled. It is further submitted that the life of the motor may decrease due to improper use of the vehicle without following the instructions given in manual and as per the admission of the complainant that the motor has functioned for 11 months effectively which shows that there is no manufacturing defect or deficiency in the vehicle.
It is submitted that the said two letters Dt.26.8.2006 and 4.9.2007 were not received by this opposite party and as such there is no question of giving reply to the same. It is further submitted that E bike will fail only in the event of failure in the battery, controller and motor and the same will be replaced within the warranty period with free calls and it is the duty purchaser to purchase the parts through proper technical person as per the advise of the dealer or manufacturer. This opposite party received notice from the Parishkruthi after the warranty period and this opposite party is not liable and it is submitted that admittedly the vehicle worked effectively for more than one year and as such replacing of the vehicle will not arise. Hence this Honourable Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint against this opposite party.
4. Heard both the parties.
5. Points to be considered in this case are that;
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim amounts and other
reliefs asked for? If so, to what extent?
6. Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on behalf of the complainant and no documents were reported on behalf of the opposite parties. No oral evidence has been adduced on either side.
7. Admitted facts in this case are that the complainant purchase one Yash Dosile E bike on 15.12.2006 from the 1st opposite party i.e the dealer of the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party collected another Rs.1,000/- towards extra fittings to the said vehicle on the even date under Ex.A.1. Ex.A.2 is warranty card and operation instructions of the said vehicle in which it was stated that the warranty is for 12 months. As per Ex.A.3 letters Dt.26.8.2007 and Dt.4.9.2007 the complainant wrote a letter to the 2nd opposite party and the battery was replaced by the 2nd opposite party. As the said vehicle is not working properly the complainant got issued legal notice Dt.3.12.2007 to the opposite parties vide Ex.A.4 and the 2nd opposite party received the same vide Ex.A.5.
8. POINT NO.1: The case of the complainant is that E bike purchased by him on 15.12.2006 for Rs.27,500/- from the 1st opposite party herein i.e the dealer of the 2nd opposite party and further paid another Rs.1,000/- towards accessories with a guaranty period for 12 months. The battery of the said vehicle seized to charge from July, 2007 and the complainant lodged a complaint with the 1st opposite party and the same was replaced by the 1st opposite party and again the motor of the vehicle did not function and the same was repaired on 14.11.2007. Even though the complainant addressed two letters to the opposite parties, there is no response from the opposite parties and the vehicle was inoperative and the complainant sustained loss.
The 1st opposite party remained exparte and even a publication was made for his appearance, but in vein.
The 2nd opposite party filed their version contending that the said vehicle was certified by the ARAI, Pune and the said bikes were supplied to the dealer after thorough inspection and verification. It is further submitted that as per used manual the warranty is only for one year from the date of purchase and warranty applies to only four main parts i.e the battery, controller, motor and charger and the charger is not part of the vehicle and it is given for purpose of charging the battery. In the user manual there are three free services and five paid service coupons and it is mandatory that the customer should use the coupons and failure of using the said coupons, neither the manufacturer not the dealer is liable for damage of guaranteed parts. It is further submitted that the battery was replaced to the vehicle of the complainant and it appears that the complainant did not charge the battery properly. As per the admission in the complaint itself the motor has functioned 11 months effectively which shows that there is no manufacturing defect. It is further submitted that the two letters Dt.26.8.2006 and Dt.4.9.2007 purported to be written by the complainant were not received by this opposite party.
On perusal of the entire record it is found that the complainant addressed two letters to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties under Ex.A.3 and as there is no response, he got issued legal notice to the opposite parties under Ex.A.4 and the same was received by the 2nd opposite party vide Ex.A.5. So, there is no force in the contention of the 2nd opposite party that they have not received any letter from the complainant. Further, it is observed that the 1st opposite party remained exparte throughout and publication was also made and the dealer at Kakinada was also approached by the complainant for rectification of defects.
As per the record available it is pertinent to note that the vehicle purchased by the complainant is still under warranty period and as per the said warranty the dealer has to attend for the repairs of the said vehicle from whom the vehicle was purchased. But, in the present case the dealer was set exparte due to non appearance. The manufacturer of the vehicle is responsible to rectify the defects in the said E bike purchased by the complainant as it is still under warranty period by the time of allegation.
As per the discussion held supra; we are in the considered opinion that the opposite parties herein are liable for deficiency of service as the vehicle sold by the dealer i.e the 1st opposite party failed to attend on the defects arise in the said E bike and that the 2nd opposite party also failed to remove deficiencies in the vehicle manufactured by them during the warranty period and which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
9.POINT NO.2: In the result, the complainant of the complainant allowed directing the opposite parties to attend and rectify the alleged defects in the said E bike and hand over the same in good working condition with in 2 months from the date of this order and the opposite parties are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) towards costs of this compliant.
Submit Complaint..
