BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

      SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER

                                                                              SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER                                     

Wednesday, 8^th June 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  04 / 2016

Mutturu Venkata Reddy, S/o Late Pedda Venkata Reddy,

aged about 66 years, D.No. 2/10, Sarvayapalli,

Kothapalli Village, Mydkur Post, Khajipet Mandal,

Kadapa District.                                                                 ….. Complainant.  

Vs.   

1.  The Manager, M/s HBL Power System Ltd.,

     8-2-601, Road No. 10, Banjara Hills,

     Hyderabad – 500034, Telangana State.

2.  The Proprietor, Glories Technology (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

     11/755, Upstairs, Near RTC Bus stand,

     Mydukur Road, Proddatur – 516361,

     Kadapa District.                                                        …..Respondents.

This complaint coming for final hearing on 03-6-2016 in the presence of Complainant as in person and Sri T. Ramalingeswara Raju, Advocate for R1 and R2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),

1.             The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Respondents to pay Rs. 46,800/- towards cost of solar battery purchased from Respondents, to pay Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs of the complaint. 

2.             The brief averments of the complaint which are in vernacular (in Telugu) language are as follows:-  the Complainant purchased a H.B.L 150 AHC 10 grade solar battery along with other attachments for an amount of Rs. 46,800/- from R2 on 5-4-2013 under bill which has warranty for a period of 36 months.   The Respondents promised that they would give new battery if the battery does not work within the warranty period.  On 29-12-2015 the battery did not work and the Complainant had taken the battery to R2 and handed over to him.  On 13-01-2016 the R2 told that the battery is not working and the company who supplied battery has been closed.  On 14-1-2016 the Complainant issued notice to the Respondents.  But they did not give any reply.  The Complainant suffered for want of current in his house and also for the function.  He brought battery from others on rental basis.  Thus he sustained loss.  Hence,  the complaint for the above relief’s.

3.             Opposite parties / Respondents filed separate counters.  They denied the allegations regarding deficiency in service on their part and Complainant suffered for want of current at his house.  Further they contended that, after receipt of the notice in this complaint the staff of Opposite parties / Respondents went to the house of the Complainant and installed new battery with three years warranty.  There is no inverter problem.  The Complainant also gave a letter on 12-3-2016 that a new solar 12v – 150 Ah, 1 number battery and inverter is in working condition and he is withdrawing the present complaint.  The other allegations in the complaint are false and filed this complaint only to blackmail and harass them.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against them. 

4.             On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for against the Respondents? 
2. To what relief?

5.             No oral evidence has been let in by the parties.  But  on behalf of complainant Exs. A1 to A6 documents are marked.  On  behalf of Respondents Exs. B1 to B3 documents are marked.       

6.             Heard arguments on both sides and perused the documentary evidence placed by the parties carefully.      

7.             Point No. 1.  The Respondents admitted that the purchase of HBL solar battery under Exs. A1 and A2 bill and it has warranty of three years, as per Ex. A3 from the date of its purchase i.e. on 5-4-2013. 

8.             The contention of the Complainant is that the battery did not work and it was handed over to R2 and he told that the battery is not working and company has been closed.  So he issued notice to the Respondents to pay the amount as the battery is not working as per warranty.  The Respondent case is that after receipt of notice in this complaint the staff of R1 went to the house of Complainant and installed a new battery again with three years of warranty.  The Complainant executed a letter on 12-3-2015 as per Ex. B1 admitting that the battery was replaced with new one and is withdrawing the complaint and he is satisfied with working of battery and inverter.    A perusal of Ex. B1 letter which has been executed by the Complainant also revealed the same.  During the arguments the Complainant across the bench admitted that new battery was installed in place of old one and battery and inverter are working satisfactorily. Since, new battery was installed by the Respondents in place of old one as per wish and will of Complainant with another three years warranty from 12-3-2016 and Complainant also acknowledged the replacement of new solar battery on 12-3-2015 by Respondents.  Since the battery and inverter is working satisfactorily and he also undertook to withdraw C.C. No. 4/2016 now, there are no lis pending between the parties and no deficiency in service on the part of the Respondents.  Since, the demand of Complainant has already been met by the Respondents to the satisfaction of Complainant we see that the Complainant is not entitled for any relief against the Respondents and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, the point is answered against the Complainant. 

9.             Point No.   In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

          Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 8^th June 2016

MEMBER                                        MEMBER                                PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant:         NIL                                   For Respondents :     NIL

Exhibits marked for Complainant  : -  

Ex. A1         Original bill No. 425, dt. 5-4-2013 for Rs. 26,800/- issued by the Respondents.

Ex. A2         Original bill No. 431, dt. 10-4-2013 for Rs. 20,000/- issued by the Respondents.

Ex. A3                   Original warranty card solar battery dt. 5-4-2013.

Ex. A4                   Postal receipts 2 Nos.dt. 14-1-16 along with letter from Complainant to R2

Ex. A5                   Postal cover returned 2^nd Respondent.

Ex. A6                   Battery returned original receipt issued by the R2, dt. 13-1-2016.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Respondents:-        

Ex. B1         Original letter dt. 12-3-2016 whom ever it concern by M. venkata Reddy, Complainant.

Ex. B2                   Receipt voucher for Rs. 10,500/- dt. 10-4-2013 issued by R2.

Ex. B3                   Receipt voucher for Rs. 20,000/- dt. 5-4-2013 issued by R2.

MEMBER                                           MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1. Mutturu Venkata Reddy, S/o Late Pedda Venkata Reddy,

                                  D.No. 2/10, Sarvayapalli, Kothapalli Village, Mydkur

                                  Post, Khajipet Mandal, Kadapa District

                             2)  Sri T. Ramalingeswara Raju, Advocate for R1 & R2.

B.V.P