Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/28/2015

MRS. J.SATYA MRUNALINI, W/O. RAM PRASAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.M/S POWER TRANS CONTROLS, AMALAPURAM AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SRI.APPANA VENKATESWARA RAO

24 Mar 2016

ORDER

                                                                                    Date of filing:   20.04.2015

                                                                                                Date of Order: 24.03.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

                           PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M.,   PRESIDENT(FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER          

    

             Thursday, the 24^th day of March, 2016

 

C.C.No.28 /2015

Between:-

 

 

Mrs. J. Satya Mrunalini (Retd. Major/Army),

W/o. Ram Prasad, D.No.79-18-18/2, Omkar Street,

Tilak Road, Rajahmundry, E.G. Dist.                                                            …  Complainant

 

                                    And

 

1)  M/s. Power Trans Controls, D.No.1-314/1,

      A.G. Road, Edarapali, Amalapuram.

 

2)  Enertech UPS Private Limited,

      Represented by its Managing Director,

      Kaushik Deshpande, Factory: S.No.399/1-2,

      Plot No.5, Bhare, P.O. Ghotawade (Near Pirangut),

      Tal, Mulshi, DIST, PUNE – 412 111.                                          …  Opposite parties

 

 

            This case coming on 09.03.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri Appana Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for the complainant and Sri Nalla Ravi Prasad, Advocate for the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party having been set ex-parte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Smt.H.V. Ramana, President(FAC)] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.7,50,000/- from the date of its receipt till repayment with interest at 24% p.a. and take back the defective solar unit; pay damages of Rs.5,00,000/-; pay Rs.2,500/- towards legal notice charges and pay Rs.25,000/- towards advocate charges and costs of the complaint.

2.         The case of the complainant is as follows:-  It is submitted that the 1^st opposite party is the supplier and dealer of the solar unit charger of which the 2^nd opposite party is the service mechanic. The complainant is the customer of the opposite parties under an agreement dt.16.3.2014 to install 10KVA solar unit charger over to grid at 40% of battery levels for a total order value of Rs.8,50,000/- and out of which the complainant paid an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- to get solar equipment and connection for its commissioning of 10 KV SPV system. Accordingly, the opposite parties have agreed to install and commensurate the system within 3 weeks. The complainant paid the said amount to meet the necessities of the opposite parties and in the installment system as required and the complainant made the following payments of Rs.7,50,000/- to the opposite parties which are as follows:- (a) Rs.2,50,000/- on 17^th March, 2014, (b) Rs.5,00,000/- on 26.5.2014 day of installation of the unit. The complainant states that though the opposite parties installed the same, but it worked only for 2 days and the complainant has informed to the opposite parties over phone about the electricity consumption from the grid being more than 60 units and thus it became as an improper installation and it did not work as needed by the complainant and so, the complainant made several correspondence to the opposite parties through E-mail and phone and the 1^st opposite party deputed the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defect in the system. While inspecting the premises on 6.8.2014 though found that it is within the warranty period, found certain remarks of its working level as nil and the opposite parties are aware that they had charged the batteries to 100% from the grid on 29.6.2014, 12.7.2014, 23.7.2014 & 01.08.2014 and even after the charging of the said batteries, the unit was not working due to which the opposite parties have completely stopped the solar PCU and bypassed to normal grid on 5.8.2014, but the problem continued to be the same and hence, the opposite parties took away the entire system on 9.9.2014 with an acknowledgement that the unit is faulty and company decided to replace with new inverter and an undertaking to replace with a new system. But on 3.11.2014, the opposite parties have repaired the same unit and reinstalled on 3.11.2014. Even then the problem is not cleared and the same is subsisting and the solar PCU remained same which was informed by the complainant to the opposite parties from time to time and again the opposite parties deputed their service engineer who visited the unit on 25.11.2014 and found mounting paid damage and replaced the part on 30.11.2014 and again the unit worked for 2 days only thereafter from 2.12.2014 till date the unit is not working and the gravity levels dropped to 1125 to 1150. It is quite understood that the same problem is continued still from the date of installation of the unit and the panel current amps also shows as 2 to 5 amps. Then the complainant complained the matter to the opposite parties over phone and also through the E-mail dt.26.12.2014. For which the opposite party issued a reply on 2.1.2015 informing the complainant that their engineer would come again and attend the problem etc. Inspite of it, the opposite parties did not take any steps nor unheard to the complainant to replace the new system in the place of defective system of Solar. The complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties on 22.1.2015 and since there is no reply. The complainant again got issued notice to the opposite parties on 21.2.2015 and the 1^st opposite party received the notice and the 2^nd opposite party is delivered on 25.2.2015, but still there is no response.  Hence, the complaint.

3.         The 1^st opposite party filed its written version and denied all the allegations made by the complainant and the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. This opposite party submits that he is not the manufacturer of the Solar unit and other equipment that was purchased by the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the Solar equipment and inverter and batteries etc. The 1^st opposite party is only the retailer of the above said equipment and the same was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party. So, if at all any defect is there in the equipment that was manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party as such they only responsible for any of the alleged defects in the equipment that were supplied by them. The complainant on satisfying with the equipment manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party placed order with the 1^st opposite party to install the 10 KVA solar unit and other equipment. The total value of the said equipment is Rs.8,25,000/- out of which the complainant paid only Rs.7,50,000/-. Though the total amount was not paid on the recommendation of the 1^st opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party supplied the entire unit and the same was installed by the Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party by name Chakradham on 26.6.2014. Subsequently, the complainant reported some defect in the unit and immediately the 1^st opposite party responded and thereby the Service Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party by name S.R. Ingale inspected the unit on 6.8.2014 and noted some defect in the unit and rectified the defect in the unit by making some changes in the parts. Subsequently also the complainant reported some defect and thereby the 1^st opposite party responded  and reported the same to the 2^nd opposite party and who send another Service Engineer on 5.9.2014. The Service Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party attended the unit and noticed that the unit is not properly working.  On the request of the complainant, the Service Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party agreed to take back the unit for rectifying the entire defects and to install the same and accordingly on 9.9.2014 the entire unit was taken by the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party after rectifying the defects in the unit brought the same to the complainant’s premises on 2.11.2014 and re-install the same by the Service Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party by name Gowrishankar. As the complainant objected for reinstalling the unit by stating that she don’t want the said unit without replacing the new unit and thereby the Service Engineer not able to complete the installation. On 3.11.2014 another engineer of the 2^nd opposite party by name Sanjay. R. Ingale attended the unit and completed the installation. It is submitted that the complainant again reported some defect in the unit and thereby the 1^st opposite party immediately responded and called the Service Engineer of the 2^nd opposite party. On 24.11.2014 the Service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party attended the unit and made some changes in the unit. Though the entire unit is working, but the complainant is not satisfied with the working capacity of the entire unit by alleging that the battery is being discharged frequently. Even after legal notice by the complainant to this 1^st opposite party, they immediately responded. It is submitted that on the request of the 1^st opposite party another Service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party by name Kishan attended the unit on 31.1.2015 and inspected the entire unit and found that though the batteries are discharging all the batteries are in good condition.  On that day he assured to come again on 2.2.2015 to rectify further problem if any. As the complainant scolded the said Service engineer and demanded to replace the entire equipment and thereby the service engineer not turned up on 2.2.2015. The 1^st opposite party time to time responded to the complainant and get the unit inspected by the service engineers of the 2^nd opposite party regularly. Though the complainant not paid the entire price of the unit, the 1^st opposite party responded each and every time and tried to get the defects rectified in the units. So, the complainant without paying the full amount of the price of the entire unit is not entitled to ask for any of the alleged deficiency of services. In fact there is no any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the 1^st opposite party. If at all there are any defects in the unit and the equipment manufactured and supplied by the 2^nd opposite party, it is for them to make good the alleged loss sustained by the complainant. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.         The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A14 have been marked. The proof affidavit filed by the 1^st opposite party and Exs.B1 to B12 have been marked.

5.         Heard both sides.

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

 

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:   The admitted facts are that the complainant purchased 10 KVA Solar Unit charge over to grid at 40% of battery levels for a total value of Rs.8,25,000/- from the 1^st opposite party for which the 1^st opposite party issued a quotation with terms and conditions vide Ex.A1. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- filed receipts vide Ex.A2 = Exs.B1 and B2. The complainant submitted that after installation of the above said unit, it worked only for two days. The complainant informed the opposite party over phone, the electricity consumption from the grid being 60 units and it became an improper installation of the said unit. The complainant made several complaints through emails and the 1^st opposite party deputed the 2^nd opposite party to rectify the defects in the system. While inspecting the unit on 6.8.2014, they found that it is within the warranty period and made certain remarks of its working level as NIL. The opposite party knows very well that they charged the batters 100 per cent from the grid on 23.7.2014 and 1.8.2014.  Even then those batteries were not working and the solar unit was completely stopped. The complainant made a complaint to the opposite parties and the opposite parties filed the service/installation report vide Ex.A8 = B4, when it is stopped functioning, the opposite parties on 9.9.2014, they acknowledged to replace the solar unit with a new unit vide Ex.A9, but on 3.11.2014, the opposite party repaired the unit and installed. Even then, it unit was not functioned. Again on 25.11.2014, the unit was repaired two days it was functioned and stopped working. The complainant wrote a letter through email to the opposite party vide Ex.A3 and informed the opposite parties, if they have not find a solution, he will approach an appropriate redressal. The complainant also filed service/installation reports vide Exs.A10, A11, A12 and A13 = Exs.B7, B8, B9, B10. The complainant also submitted that due to non-functioning of the said unit, the consumption of the electricity is also drastically increased and he filed electricity bills to that extent vide Ex.A14. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 22.1.2015 vide Ex.A4 and the same is received by them and kept quiet. He also gave another legal notice to the opposite parties on 21.2.2015 vide Ex.A5 and the same is acknowledged by them vide Ex.A6 and A7.

The 2^nd opposite party was set ex-parte and the 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant purchased 10 KVA Solar unit from them, but he is only a retailer of the 2^nd opposite party. They also admitted that the complainant paid Rs.7,50,000/- to them. This opposite party further submitted that they are not manufacturers of the unit and other equipment purchased by the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer. He further submitted that their firm is only a retailer. If, there were any defects in the unit the opposite party, who is the manufacturer only responsible. On satisfaction of the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party placed an order with the 1^st opposite party to install the solar unit and other equipment. They also informed that the total value of the equipment is Rs.8,25,000/- and the complainant paid only Rs.7,50,000/-. This opposite party installed the unit and filed their report vide Ex.B3 and also filed another service certificate vide B5 in which they stated that the solar unit was not functioning properly. The opposite parties repaired the solar unit and delivered to the complainant on 17.10.2014 delivery challan vide Ex.B6. Even after repairing the unit and installed the same, the said unit was not functioning at all. Then the complainant made several complaints about the defects in the unit, even after rectifying the defects, the unit was not functioned. The opposite party again visited on 5.1.2015 and made a note on Ex.B11 with regard to the defects in the unit and also the complainant acknowledged his dissatisfaction on the same document. The complainant made a lot of correspondence with the opposite party and the said correspondence is herewith filed vide Ex.B12. This opposite party submitted that the service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party not able to complete the installation even after reinstalling the unit, on 3.11.2014, another service engineer of 2^nd opposite party attended the unit and completed the installation. Again the complainant reported some defects, the service engineer attended on 24.11.2014 and made some changes in the unit. Even though the entire unit is working, the complainant was not satisfied with the working capacity of the entire unit and also alleged that the batteries were discharged frequently. This opposite party submitted that they are supporting the complainant as and when required and attending the unit and rectifying the defects of the equipment up to the satisfaction of the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party ready to replace the entire unit, but they have not replaced the unit. There is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party, the defects are rectifying only by the 2^nd opposite party’s service engineers.  The complainant without paying the full amount of the entire unit and he is not supposed to allege the deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for damages of Rs.5,00,000/- which is an extraordinary amount and there is no authenticated proof to that extent.

After perusing the material on record, it is observed that the 1^st opposite party contended that he is only a retailer of the above said equipment and the 2^nd opposite party is the manufacturer of the Solar unit and they are only responsible for any of the alleged defects in the equipments that was supplied by them. The 1^st opposite party further contended that he ordered the equipment to the 2^nd opposite party on the satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant paid only Rs.7,50,000/- to the said equipment though the total value is Rs.8,25,000/- on the recommendation of this opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party supplied the solar unit without payment of full amount.   

 The complainant contended that she purchased Solar unit from the opposite parties and entered into an agreement vide Ex.A1 and paid Rs.7.5 lakhs vide Ex.A2. In this Ex.A2, it is mentioned that the total value of the unit is Rs.8,25,000/-. Here, in this case, the complainant contended that the said unit was functioned only for two days and afterwards it started giving trouble. The complainant immediately informed the opposite parties and the opposite parties sent their service engineer, he noted the defects on Ex.A8 that the batteries voltage was not setting properly to the unit and hissing noise is coming. He also mentioned that the Solar unit is not functioning properly. As per Ex.B12, the complainant made a lot of correspondence with the opposite parties with regard to the functioning of the Solar system. As per the Service/installation reports, the opposite parties attended the defects of the solar system several times and also mentioned the defects in the unit in their reports. As per Ex.A9 dated 9.9.2014, the opposite parties acknowledged to replace the unit, but they have not done so and they have taken the unit and rectified the defects. Even then, the unit was not worked properly and the same is endorsed by the complainant in the service report dt.5.1.2015 vide Ex.B11.

               The 1^st opposite party also contended that as and when there is a defect reported by the complainant immediately he informed the 2^nd opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party service engineer attended the unit and noticed that the unit is not working properly. On 9.9.2014, the 2^nd opposite party took the entire unit and rectified the defects and reinstalled the same on 2.11.2014 in the complainant’s premises and also completed the installation on 3.11.2014 by another engineer by name Sanjay R. Ingale. Again, the complainant reported that the defect in the unit and the same was attended by the service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party. The main complaint of the complainant is that the batteries are being discharged frequently and requested the 2^nd opposite party to replace the entire unit, but the 2^nd opposite party is not responding properly and stating that those defects are minor. Again the service engineer of the 2^nd opposite party attended unit on 31.1.2015 and inspected the entire unit and found that though the batteries are discharging, but all the batteries are in good condition and also promised to come again and rectify the defect on 2.2.2015. The opposite party 1^st the complainant hurriedly filed this case before this Forum.

            As per the material and the averments made by both parties, it is observed that the complainant paid only Rs.7,50,000/- to the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party supplied the unit on the recommendation of the 1^st opposite party even it is Rs.8,25,000/-, but as per our observation, it is noted that on the second day of installation of the unit is not functioning properly and the purpose of purchasing the unit is not served to the complainant. As per the documents, we observed that several times the service engineers of the 2^nd opposite party are attended and time and again rectifying the defects, the said unit was purchased in the month of March, 2014 and the same is not functioning and troubling since then till the date of filing of this complaint. Therefore, basing on the service/installation reports, we opined that the said unit is having manufacturing defect, supplying of defective Solar unit by the opposite parties to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service. Here, in this case, it is a fact that the complainant approached the 1^st opposite party for purchase of the Solar unit. The said 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the 2^nd opposite party, who is the manufacturer of the solar units.  In this case, the 2^nd opposite party supplied defective unit to the 1^st opposite party and the same was sold to the complainant. Here, the complainant paid the amount to the 1^st opposite party, therefore, the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable.  The 1^st opposite party is the dealer of the 2^nd opposite party. Therefore, the 2^nd opposite party who is the manufacturer is having the liability of producing the perfect solar unit to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party acknowledged in Ex.A9 that the solar unit installed by them was not working properly and they took a decision that they are going to replace the solar unit and they will send the defective solar unit to the 2^nd opposite party. They also stated that they will take the responsibility to collect the solar unit from the customer’s site. But, as per the records, the 1^st opposite party stated that the said unit was taken by them on 2.11.2014 and rectified the defects and installed the same at complainant’s residence, but they have not replaced the said unit.

 

            In view of the above discussion, we opined that there is a manufacturing defect in the said solar unit and they could not rectify the defects even inspite of several attempts made by the service engineers of the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to repay the amount paid by the complainant with damages and costs.      

 

8.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay an amount Rs.7,50,000/- to the complainant and the opposite parties are directed to take the defective Solar unit on their own costs from the complainant. We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages for causing inconvenience to the complainant for non-functioning of the solar unit and also pay Rs.5,000/- towards the costs of the complaint to the complainant.  Time for compliance is two months from the date of this order.   

 

      Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the 24^th day of March, 2016.

    

                  Sd/-xxx                                                                                     Sd/-xxx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT: None.                                         FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1     Agreement dt.16.3.2014 given by the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.A2     Payment particulars of Rs.7,50,000/- under two receipts one is for Rs.2,50,000/- on

               17.3.2014 and the second payment receipt dt.26.5.2014 for Rs.5,00,000/-.

Ex.A3     Office copy of Email from the complainant to the opposite parties dt.2.1.2015.

Ex.A4     Legal notice dt.22.1.2015 with postal receipt and served information from postal

              authorities.

Ex.A5     Legal notice dt.21.2.2015 with postal receipts.

Ex.A6     Served ack. due from the 1^st opposite party received back on 25.2.2015.

Ex.A7     Served information for the 2^nd opposite party through postal authorities through

               internet copy and also served ack. due.

Ex.A8     Service report dt.6.8.2014 from the opposite parties.

Ex.A9     Report dt.9.9.2014 from the opposite parties with commitment that the unit will be

             replaced.

Ex.A10  Service report dt.2.11.2014 from the opposite parties.

Ex.A11  Service report dt.3.11.2014 from the opposite parties.

Ex.A12  Service report dt.24.11.2014 from the opposite parties.

Ex.A13  Service report dt.30.11.2014 from the opposite parties.

Ex.A14  Current consumption bills on high range even though no use of solar inverter.

 

 

FOR 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:-  

 

Ex.B1     dt/26.05.2014   Receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B2     dt/17.03.2014   copy of cheque and receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.B3     dt/26.06.2014   Service/installation report cum certificate.

Ex.B4     dt/06.08.2014   Service/installation report cum certificate.

Ex.B5     dt/05.09.2014   Service/installation report cum certificate.

Ex.B6     dt/17.10.2014   Delivery challan issued by the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.B7     dt/02.11.2014   Service/installation report cum certificate.

Ex.B8     dt/23.11.2014   Service/installation report cum certificate.

Ex.B9     dt/24.11.2014   Service/installation report cum certificate.

Ex.B10   dt/30.11.2014   Service/installation report cum certificate.

Ex.B11   dt/07.01.2015   Service/installation report cum certificate.

Ex.B12   Conversation between the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party.

 

 

                Sd/-xxx                                                                                      Sd/-xxx

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)