BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C.No: 247/2011 Filed on 02/08/2011

Dated : 30..12..2011

Complainant:

M. Mohammad Rafeek, M.R.T House, Avanavancherry – P.O., Attingal.

(Party in person)

Opposite parties:

1. Anu Solar Power Private Limited, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore – 560 058.

2. Madathil Marketing Agency, Near NSS Karayogam, K.P. Vallon Road, Kadavanthra, Kochi – 682 020.

This O.P having been heard on 14..12..2011, the Forum on 30..12..2011 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The facts of the case are as follows: Complainant had purchased a Solar Invertor manufactured by 1^st opposite party, on 23/12/2009 through the 2^nd opposite party. The same became defective and the 2^nd opposite party has failed to cure the defects. The Invertor has a guarantee for a period of 2 years. The complainant could not use the same even for a period of one month and hence this complaint.

2. Opposite parties have accepted notice from this Forum but did not turn up to contest the matter. Hence they remain ex-parte.

Complainant has furnished documents in support of his complaint which are marked as Exts. P1 to P5 series.

3. The issues 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 any of the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?

4. Points (i) & (ii): As per the retail invoice Ext. P2, issued to the complainant, it is evident that one Anu Solar Invertor has been delivered to the complainant on 23/12/2009. The certificate of warranty which has been marked as Ext. P3 reveals that this product has warranty coverage till 23/12/2019 for Solar Generator System and till 23/12/2012 for the battery. The complainant has filed his affidavit and has sworn that the defective invertor is with the opposite parties now. According to the complainant, he could not use the same even for a period of one month. The opposite parties have not cross examined the complainant and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. The complainant has pleaded that the 2^nd opposite party had changed the parts of the invertor thrice and even after that the defects could not be rectified by them. As the opposite parties have not turned up to deny the allegations levelled against them, we find no reason to disbelieve the complainant. From the above it could be concluded that the complainant has been made to suffer due to the defective invertor. The complainant could not use the invertor defect free even for one month. The desire of a new buyer has been disappointed by the performance of the invertor. Hence we conclude that, the act of the opposite parties in not rectifying the defects amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Further as the invertor is with the opposite parties, the procedure contemplated under Section 13(1) of Consumer Protection Act need not be followed.

5. From the above we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his complaint. The complainant is found entitled to get the invertor rectified or refund of the cost of the invertor along with Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and costs.

In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties shall jointly and severally rectify the defects of the invertor free of cost within a period of one month along with Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and costs. If the same is not rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order, the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund the cost of the invertor along with compensation and cost with 9% from the date of order.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30^th day of December, 2011.

sd/-

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

sd/-

BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.

C.C.No: 247/2011

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness :

PW1 : Mohammed Rafeek

II. Complainant's documents:

P1 : Copy of cash receipt No. 2285 dated 3/12/2009

P2 : " Retail Invoice Form No. 8B dated 23/12/2009

P3 : " certificate of warranty dated 12/12/2009

P4 : Cash memo dated 23/12/2009

P5 : Original receipts

III. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

4. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

sd/-

PRESIDENT