Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/20/2016

P.Jagan mohan Reddy, S/o Narasimha Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Branch Manager, Cerabath House - Opp.Party(s)

B.Sreenivasan

31 Oct 2017

ORDER

Date of Filing     :25-02-2016

                                                                             Date of Disposal:31-10-2017

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Tuesday, this the  31^st day of   OCTOBER, 2017

 

          Present: Sri Sk.Mohd.Ismail, M.A., LL.B., President

                         Sri K. Umamaheswara Rao, M.A., B.L., Member

 

C.C.No.20/2016

 

P. Jagan Mohan Reddy,

S/o.Narasimha Reddy,

Hindu, Aged about 47 years,

Employee,

Residing at 26-15-249/1,

RR Homes, 3^rd street,

Vanamthopu, Nellore,

SPSR Nellore District.                                                              ..… Complainant         

                                                             Vs.

1.	Branch Manager, Cerabath House, 15/342, Upstairs, Subedharpet,Nellore.
2.	Managing Director, Nuetech Solar Systems Private Limited,                                                                                         5, B.M. Shankaratte, Vishwaneedam Post, Magadi Main Road, Bangalore-560 091.                                                          ..…Opposite parties

                                                        .    

          This complaint is coming before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri  B. Sreenivasan  and  Sri Bala Pradeep, advocates for the  complainant                                                      and  Sri  N. Venkateswara Rao, advocate for the opposite party No.1 and                      Sri M.Leelamohan and Sri M. Dhruvaraj, advocates  for the opposite party No.2   and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

                       (ORDER BY  Sri.Sk.MOHD.ISMAIL, PRESIDENT)

 

           The complainant filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 and 2 to direct  the opposite parties to replace the defective system with a new Solar Water  Heating System which will  work in proper condition and if the opposite parties fails to replace new system, the opposite parties to direct to  pay a sum of Rs.1,23,500/-  with interest at 24% p.a. from  date of notice  14-10-2015 to till date of payment and also direct to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant and costs  and submits  to allow the complaint with costs.

          2.         The brief averments of the complaint are as follows that :- The  complainant  submits that the complainant purchased Solar Water Heater System from 1^st opposite party which was manufactured by 2^nd opposite party.  The complainant  purchased the same on 09-06-2014 under bill number 27 bearing particulars FPC1000LPDSS316   and paid a sum of Rs.1,23,500/- to the 1^st opposite party  and the 1^st opposite party  issued a bill on 09-06-2014 to the complainant.  The 2^nd opposite party issued a guaranty certificate for a period of one year and installed the same on  09-06-2014.

          The complainant submits that from the beginning of the installation of Solar Water Heating System the water is leaking from the tank and the system is not working properly.  The complainant informed the same to the customer care people   by way of messages and mails and the customer care people are not responding properly.  With great  difficulty when the heavy pressure made by the complainant the customer care people  are coming   and making, checking and going back without making rectifications.  The complainant sent emails on 05-06-2015,                06-06-2015, 23-06-2015, 27-06-2015, 13-07-2015 and 14-07-2015 and                           12-09-2015.   Even though several requests made by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 and 2 have not responded properly.  The customer care people of the opposite parties who are attending for rectification are not having sufficient knowledge and regarding to the solar heating  system and opposite parties 1 and 2 are not maintaining the proper technicians who know about the solar heating systems.

            The complainant submits that the attitude of  opposite parties 1 and 2 clearly shows  that the opposite parties have  supplied a defective system to the complainant.  The opposite parties are not doing fair trade practice  and they are doing unfair trade practice.  Further when the complainant made complaint about the defects of the Solar Water Heating System it is the duty of the opposite parties to rectify the defects.  The complainant made complaint within a period of guaranty  but  the opposite parties  are not discharged their duties properly.  There is deficiency of service and dereliction of duties  on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant submits that in view of the installation of defective system by the opposite parties  and having investing the huge amount and which is not useful to the complainant and became burdensome and complainant suffered both mentally and physically and liable to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Then the complainant got issued legal notice dated 14-10-2015 calling upon the opposite parties to replace the defective system with new system which will work in proper condition and the opposite parties received the said  notices and failed to comply the demand made by the complainant and hence submits to allow the complaint with costs.

        3.       The opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to appear before the Forum  and they did not file any written version.

       4.       On behalf of the complainant, the affidavit of P.W.1 filed and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked.

       5.       On behalf  of the opposite party No.1, the affidavit of R.W.1 filed and no documents were marked on behalf of  opposite party No.1.

       6.       On behalf of opposite party No.2, no evidence was adduced and no documents were marked.

       7.         Written arguments  and additional written arguments were filed  on behalf of the complainant and  written arguments on behalf of opposite party No.1 filed  and no written arguments filed on behalf of opposite party No.2.

        8.          Arguments on behalf of learned counsels for both parties heard.

        9.         Perused the written arguments filed on behalf of  complainant and opposite party No.1.

       10.        Now the points for consideration:

                    (1) Whether the complaint filed by the complainant against the

                           opposite parties 1 and 2 under Section-12  of Consumer Protection

                         Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service  is maintainable?

                    (2)To what relief, the complaint is entitled?

        11.       POINT No.1:The learned counsel for the complainant submits by relying upon  Exs.A1  and A2 that  the complainant purchased Solar Water Heater  System  on  09-06-2014 and as the said system was giving trouble on 05-06-2015, the complainant informed the same to the opposite parties 1 and 2 about the  defective functioning of the Solar System which was purchased  by the complainant on 09-06-2014 and inspite of  informing through  e-mail, there is no response on behalf of the opposite parties to rectify the defect and  hence the complaint filed this complaint against the opposite parties to direct the opposite parties  to  replace the defective system or to direct  the opposite parties for payment of Rs.1,23,500/-  with interest and submits to allow the  complaint with costs.

                  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 submits that opposite parties  is no way concerned with the   company and as there is no deficiency of service by the opposite parties 1 and 2, the complaint filed  by the complainant  against the opposite parties 1 and 2 is not maintainable and submits  for  dismissal  of the complaint.

            In view of the arguments submitted by the learned counsels for both parties and as seen from the records,  the complainant purchased soar System on                        09-06-2014 under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 shows that the warranty period is one year i.e., from  09-06-2014 to 08-06-2015 and the said system was  giving trouble on 05-06-2015  within the  period of  Ex.A2 Guarantee  or Warranty period  as the  system of the complainant was not  functioning properly as per Ex.A2  warranty period is  inforce, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties 1 and 2  ought to have   take steps to rectify  the defects of the system of the complainant but there is no response from the  opposite parties  and  as there is no evidence   that the  defective operation of the  Solar  system of the complainant was rectified by the opposite parties 1 and 2 and as  warranty period was not expires, the complaint filed by the complainant  has to be allowed.

In  Newton  Glass Allied Industries Limited Vs.  Birla Technologies Limited reported in  2010 CTJ 928 (NC).

        Wherein   the Hon’ble  National Commission held that when there are defects during the warranty period, the opposite party has to  attend  for rectification .              

           Following the above decision, we are of  the opinion that as per Ex.A2 warranty period is inforce, it is the  duty of the opposite parties  to rectify the defect in the system which was  purchased by the complainant.

              Though the learned  counsel for the opposite party No.1 submits that  Bommisetty Subramanyam  is no way concerned with the  firm and one  Thulluru Ramesh is the  Branch Manager  of opposite party No.2 but the proceedings will be issued against  the persons who are in charge of the said  establishment and  who are doing business in the said shop.   Hence, the contention of the opposite party No.1  that he is  no way  concerned with the branch office of the opposite  party No.2 cannot be accepted. 

                By relying upon the above decision and the facts of the case and as the system of the  complainant was  damaged during  the warranty period, we are of the opinion that the complaint  filed by the  complainant   against the opposite parties 1 and 2 has to  be allowed.  In view of  the above said discussion, we answer this point in favour of the complainant   and  against the opposite parties 1 and 2.

          12.    POINT No.2:In view of our answering on point No.1 in favour of   the complainant and against  the opposite parties  1 and 2, the complaint filed by the complainant has to be allowed with costs.

           In the result, the complaint  is allowed with costs  and the opposite parties           1 and 2 are directed  to pay a sum of Rs.1,23,500/- (Rupee one lakh twenty three thousand  and five hundred only)  with interest   @ l2% p.a. on Rs.1,23,500/- from the  date of  Ex.A4 notice dated 14-10-2015 till the date of payment  and the complainant is directed to return the defective solar water system to the opposite parties at the time of payment.

           The opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay damages of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant.

           The opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand  only) towards the costs of the complaint .

           The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to comply  the award within                  30 days  on communication of the order.

          Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her corrected  and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the   31^st day of  OCTOBER, 2017.

 

 

             Sd/-                                                                                Sd/-

      MEMBER                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

                                      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainant

 

P.W.1  -

31-08-2016

Sri P. Jagan Mohan Reddy, S/o.Narasimha Reddy,  SPSR Nellore District. (chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

20-04-2017

Sri Bommisetty  Subrahmanyam, S/o.Sreenivasulu, Nellore-1 (Chief affidavit filed).

 

                           EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANT

 

Ex.A1  -	09-06-2014	Photostat copy of  Invoice No.027  in favour of complainant issued by the  opposite party No.1 for Rs.1,23,500/-.
Ex.A2  -	-	Photostat copy of Guarantee Certificate in favour of complainant issued by the opposite party No.2.
Ex.A3  -	12-09-2015	Photostat copy of  e-mails.
Ex.A4  -	14-10-2015	Legal notice from complainant’s advocate to the opposite parties along with two registered post receipts addressed to the opposite parties.
Ex.A5  -	14-10-2015	Photostat copy of  postal tracking  details relating to RN648302845IN.
Ex.A6  -	14-10-2015	Photostat copy of  postal tracking  details relating to RN648302847IN.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

 

 

                                                                                                            Id/-

                                                                                                      PRESIDENT

Copies to:

1.	Sri B. Sreenivasan and Sri B. Bala Pradeep, Advocates, Nellore.
2.	Sri N. Venkateswara Rao, Advocate, Nellore.
3.	Sri M. Leelamohan and Sri M.Dhruvaraj, Advocates, D.No.10/3/457,  Sree Gayatri Nilayam, Kamakshi Nagar, Anicut Road, Santhapet,                           Nellore-524 001.

 

Date when free copy was issued: