KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 687/2022

JUDGMENT DATED: 27.01.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 186/2017 of CDRC, Palakkad)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN    : PRESIDENT

SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH                                                       : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI.RANJIT. R                                                                   : MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

E. Vijayan, S/o late Sankara Tharakan, Erattuthodi House, Thiruvazhikkode Post, Ottapalam, Palakkad.

                                          (By Advs. K. Dhananjayan & P. Priya Pillai)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENT:

A.N. Sethumadhavan, ‘Amma’ House, Kunnathurmedu Post, Palakkad-678 013.

JUDGMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

The complainant in C.C. No. 186/2017 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Palakkad (in short the District Commission) has filed this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of his complaint as per order dated 31.10.2022.  The opposite party in the complaint is the respondent herein.  The parties are referred to according to their status before the District Commission.

2.  According to the complainant, he had installed a solar panel marketed and sold by the opposite party.  The opposite party is also an after sales service provider for the proper upkeep and functioning of the panel.  The total consideration paid was Rs. 1,59,000/-.  Within one year of use, during the warranty period itself, the panel started showing a number of defects like low voltage, fast discharge of the battery etc.  The complainant suffered loss due to the defective product.  Therefore, he sought for return of the amount paid by him together with interest @ 12% per annum and for other incidental reliefs before the District Commission.  The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party.  The opposite party appeared and filed version.  

3.  In his version, the opposite party admitted that he was engaged in the installation as well as post installation works of solar energy systems.  He contended that he was only an agent of the manufacturer and therefore denied liability to compensate the complainant.  He also disputed the allegation that the product supplied by him was defective and that it suffered from manufacturing defects. He therefore sought dismissal of the complaint. 

4.  The parties went to trial on the above pleadings.  The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A8 documents on his side.  Though the opposite party also filed proof affidavit, since he did not appear thereafter, he was set ex-parte and the complaint was considered on the basis of the evidence of the complainant alone. 

5.  On a consideration of the evidence, the District Commission came to the conclusion that since the opposite party was only an agent of the manufacturer, no liability could be fastened on him in the absence of any evidence to show that he could be made liable in terms of the provisions contained in Sec. 230 of the Indian Contract Act.  On the allegation that the solar panel installed in his premises was defective, the District Commission found that the complainant had not adduced any evidence to prove his contention.  Though an Interlocutory Application I.A. No. 277/2018 was filed for the appointment of an expert commissioner and was allowed by the District Commission on 03.11.2018, in the absence of any serious effort on the part of the complainant to execute the warrant issued, the same was recalled.  Consequently, the District Commission found that there was no evidence in support of the allegations made in the complaint.  Accordingly, the complaint has been dismissed.  This appeal is against the said order.

6.  This appeal is posted before us for admission.  We have heard the counsel for the appellant, at length.  We notice that the manufacturer of the solar panel was not made a party before the District Commission though the specific contention of the opposite party was that he was only an agent and not liable for any manufacturing defect.  The attempt of the complainant to fasten liability for the alleged manufacturing defect on the opposite party has been rightly disallowed by the District Commission.  The complainant has also not adduced any evidence to substantiate his allegation that the solar panel installed in his premises was defective as alleged.  Therefore, there is no proof in this case regarding the alleged defects of the solar panel set out in the complaint.  It was in the absence of any evidence to substantiate the case of the complainant that, the same has been dismissed by the District Commission.  We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Commission that requires correction in appeal. 

For the above reasons, this appeal is dismissed.  No costs. 

                                                                     Sd/-

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT                     

                                                                     Sd/-

                                T.S.P. MOOSATH  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                      Sd/-

                 RANJIT. R                : MEMBER                    

                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                                            BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                         RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb