IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.M.G.Hiremath<br /> B.Sc., LL.B(Spl.) - President<br /> <br /> 2. Smt.M.Mahadevi<br /> M.Sc., M.Ed., -Member<br /> <br /> 3. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 203/06 DATED 13-09-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant B.Chandrashekar, No.577, Sharadanagara Railway Layout, Bogadi, Mysore.<br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Anu Solar Power Pvt. Ltd., No.248, III Cross, 8th Main Road III Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-58.<br /> 2. Tarus Systems, No.8/C, LIG I Floor, Vishwa Manava Double Road, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-23.<br /> (EXPARTE)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 18-07-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : -<br /> Date of order : 13-09-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : -<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant purchased a Solar Water Heating Unit from the 2nd Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party is the manufacturer. He says that the unit stopped functioning about four months back and despite complaining to the Opposite Parties the unit was not repaired by them. Hence, this Complaint. The Complainant wants us to direct the Opposite Parties to repair the unit or repay the price of the unit with costs. <br /> 2. Both Opposite Parties have received the notices sent from the Forum but remained absent. Hence, they have been placed exparte. <br /> 3. In view of this, the following points arise for our consideration:- <br /> (a) Whether the Complainant proves that Solar Water Heating Unit purchased from the Opposite Parties is defective and not working?<br /> (b) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have failed to repair the unit and thereby cause deficiency in service?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 4. POINTS NO. 3(a) & 3(b):- The Complainant has produced the original invoice issued by the second O.P. which shows that he purchased a 200 LPD Solar Water Heater on 16-03-2005 at a cost of Rs.32,000/-. The installation certificate issued by the 2nd Opposite Party and the letter issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the Assistant Executive Engineer, KPTCL indicate that the unit was installed on 16.03.2005.<br /> 5. The Complainant has written a letter to the Managing Director of the 1st Opposite Party on 03.07.2006 with a copy endorsed to the 2nd Opposite Party wherein he has complained that the unit was not working for the last 3 months and that staff at his office were not responding properly to his requests to set right the unit. He has, also, written that the 2nd Opposite Party was also not responding on the ground that he is no longer the dealer for the product.<br /> 6. The Complainant has produced a letter dated 03.07.2006 written to Nagarjuna Credit & Capitals wherein he has stated that he would withhold payment of installments of the loan availed for the purchase of the Solar Unit as the unit was not functioning for the last 3 months.<br /> 7. The Complainant has produced the Owners Manual and Service Book. At page-5 of the said book, it is mentioned that for better and long life of the system, the user has to check the water quality and if the hardness is in excess of 200 LPD of suitable water softening device has to be installed and only soft water has to be fed to the system. However, it must be noted that these instructions have to be given prior to selling the unit. Such instructions in the Owners manual, which is given after the unit is sold and installed, will not serve the purpose and will catch purchaser unaware. The seller has to explain the implication of installing Solar Water heater to the purchaser before hand so that he can have the water tested for hardness before deciding to purchase. This responsibility is primarily on the seller of the goods. Thus Clause No.6 of the warranty in the owners’ manual loses significance due to the failure of the Opposite Parties to inform the Complainant before hand against the use of hard water.<br /> <br /> 8. Both Opposite Parties have chosen not to participate in the proceedings. The documents produced by the Complainant are sufficient to discharge of the burden of proof, on him. From the affidavit of the Complainant also it is clear that the Opposite Parties have rendered deficient service. His affidavit has remained unchallenged. Hence, we answer both points in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following order. <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. Opposite Parties are directed to make the solar unit operational within one month from today, failing which they shall be liable to replace the entire solar unit or pay Rs.32,000/- within one month thereafter. On payment of Rs.32,000/- or replacement of the unit, the opposite parties will be at liberty to take back the existing solar unit installed by them.<br /> 3. Opposite parties shall pay the complainant cost of Rs.300/-. <br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open court on this the day 13th September 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (M.G.Hiremath)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (M.Mahadevi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />