<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 28.10.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 17th DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2308/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mrs.A.Geetha,(Represented by her father-in-law, K.Mukundan, The holder of General Power of Attorney from her)“HAIMAVATHI” No.742, 1st Main, ‘C’ Block,AECS Layout, Kundalahalli,Bangalore – 560 037.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY M/s. Anu Solar Power Pvt. Ltd.,248, 3rd Cross, 8th Main,3rd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area,Bangalore – 560 058.Advocate – R.Manjula<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased one 1,200 LPD Anu Solar Water Heater from OP for a valid consideration of Rs.23,000/- on 25.06.2004. OP installed the said water heater at her premises. On 22.03.2008 she felt that the said water heater is not working properly and she is not getting the expected hot water. She felt defect with the water heater. Then immediately contacted the OP and lodged the complaint. OP technician inspected the water heater and demanded Rs.2,000/- for cleaning etc., and also directed the complainant to send the said water heater to their service center. Complainant felt it is impracticable. Thereafter though she made repeated requests and demands in the month of August, there was no proper response. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP she wrote a letter to OP either to replace the copper absorber or refund the cost of the said unit. Her efforts went futile. OP demanded Rs.14,000/- for attending the said defects which is not fair. Under the circumstances complainant felt both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. For no fault of her she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Accordingly she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs.<br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant used the said solar water heater without any problem for more than 4 years. After the warranty period complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. On the receipt of the complaint from the complainant the technician of the OP inspected the solar water heater and noticed that solar Flange panel fully blocked. To repair or replace the same they need Rs.2,000/- copper absorber were not working properly, to replace them complainant has to pay Rs.5,000/-. The other allegations of the complainant are baseless. On the receipt of the reminders from the complainant it was made clear to her that as the warranty period is over, if she want any service from OP she will have to bear the expenses. Without heeding to the request of the OP, complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. Complaint is devoid of merits. Neither there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP nor any unfair trade practice. Hence OP is not liable to replace the unit or to refund the cost and pay compensation. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one Solar Water Heater from OP for a valid consideration of Rs.23,000/- on 25.06.2004. It is an admitted fact that the warranty period is for 4 years. Admittedly complainant used the said solar water heater without any problem continuously for 4 years and after the lapse of so called warranty period it appears complainant has come up with this complaint. According to the complainant on 22.03.2008 she noticed that the said installation was not giving the expected hot water. Thus made a complaint to the OP. The fact that OP technician visited the spot and examined the solar water heater is also not at dispute.<br /> <br /> 7. Now the grievance of the complainant is that OP charged Rs.2,000/- per panel to clean the same and also claimed excess of amount with regard to the copper absorber, which is unjust and improper. It appears complainant has not made payment of the said amount but she wrote several letters to OP to attend to the said defects free of cost. OP made it clear that as the warranty period is over they are not obliged to extend free service she will have bear the expenses that too to the tune of Rs.2,000/- per panel to repair and Rs.5,000/- per panel to replace copper absorber. In all Rs.14,000/- complainant is not agreeable for the same.<br /> <br /> 8. OP has come up with the specific defence that after the expiry of the warranty period they are not expected to extend the free service. The solar water heater Flange panel was fully blocked and the copper absorber were in-effective. That is the reason why they suggested the complainant to get them changed and for replacement of the said panel she has to pay Rs.14,000/-. Document to that effect is produced by the OP. We don’t find fault with the OP. Under such circumstances allegations made by the complainant appears to be baseless.<br /> <br /> 9. When once the said solar water heater has given the satisfactory service right up to warranty period and after the warranty period if there is any defect noticed for curing the said defect including the replacement of the parts complainant has to bear the expenses. The demand made by the OP does not amounts to unfair trade practice. The option is still open to the complainant to get rectify the mistake by making such necessary payment. When such an equally efficacious relief is readily available to the complainant she can’t allege the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Under such circumstances complainant is neither entitled for replacement of the said panels, copper absorber free of cost or refund of the cost of the solar water heater with compensation. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 17th day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />