Haryana

Ambala

CC/55/2022

Satindra Paul Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Authorized Signatory Luminous Power Technologies Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Davinder Singh

14 Sep 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	55 of 2022
Date of Institution	:	14.02.2022
Date of decision	:	14.09.2023

Satindra Paul Singh aged about 71 years s/o Sh. Inderjeet Chopra, R/o VPO Kurali, Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt Ambala.

…..Complainant.

•  

 

1. Authorized Signatory Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd, C-56, Mayapuri Industrial Area, Phase 2, Mayapuri, New Delhi, 110064.
2. Corporate officer, Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd, Plot No.150, Sector 44, Gurugram, Haryana, 122003.
3. Area Sales Manager, Sh. Sachin Batra (Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd.) 1, Mahesh Nagar, Ambala Cantt, Mob. No. 9896549955.
4. Gee Gee & Company 282, Model town Opp. Canal Rest House, Ambala City.
5. Paul Invertor and Battery, Hussani Road near New Bus stand, Naraingarh, Through its proprietor.

….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                      Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Shri Maninder Singh, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                      None for the OPs No.1 to 3.

                     OPs No.4 and 5 already ex parte vide order dated 06.04.2022.     

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. To refund Rs.74,000/- alongwith Rs.10,000/-, as miscellaneous expenses including transportation charges alongwith interest thereon.
2. To pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.  
3. To pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation charges 
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission deems fit.

   

2.           Brief facts of this case are that the complainant is using solar power system since long and is fully conversant with the utility, functioning of the solar power system. At VPO Kurali Tehsil Naraingarh, Distt Ambala, the complainant was already using Solar Power system and he was in need to extend its facility. He was compelled by OP No.5 being old and regular customer for the last more than 30 years that luminous Solar UPS PCU of 7.5 KVA (7500 Watt) will be best for his need. The complainant was contacted by the OPs No. 3 & 4 and was compelled to buy luminous system for an amount of Rs.74000/-. Resultantly, the complainant paid a sum of Rs 25,000/- on 29/11/2021 through Cheque no.162012 from his account maintained at PNB, Naraingarh Branch and further transferred Rs.49,000/- from abroad on 31/12/2021 to the account of OP No.4 and in this manner Rs.74,000/- were paid upto 31/12/2021 for 7.5 KVA Solar UPS PCU. However, no bill, receipt or E-way bill was issued by OP No.4. The complainant was informed by OPs No.3 to 5 that the solar UPS PCU will be sent to the shop of OP No.5 and from there the same will be installed by the company employee in the farm house of the complainant. It was disclosed by the OPs that installation of the instrument/PCU is free and the same was to be installed by them. When the above said new Solar PCU UPS was taken to the farm house of the complainant; prior to its installation, the engineer named Jaspal Singh told the complainant that display of PCU is not working and Solar PCU UPS could not be installed. However, when he tried to install the same without display it did not function and the concerned officer was intimated regarding this manufacturing defect. After about 10 days, engineer Jaspal Singh came alongwith new display and remained busy to install the same for many hours but this time again the Solar PCU UPS could not be made functional and old PCU UPS make Smarten was again installed at the site where it was earlier functioning perfectly. The OPs were informed by their engineer regarding manufacturing defect in the Solar PCU UPS and failure of its installation form the very inception. However, despite several efforts by engineers of OPs, the Solar PCU UPS could not be installed and made functional as it was suffering from manufacturing defects. The complainant contacted the OPs in the matter, number of times, but to no avail. Complainant served legal notice dated 24.01.2022, upon the OPs, but of no use.  Till date neither the Solar PCU UPS has been made defect free nor the amount paid has been refunded to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to not come with clean hands and suppressed the true and material facts, no cause of action etc.  On merits, it has been stated that the amount toward cost of product was paid by the complainant to OPs No. 4 & 5 only. It was told by the sales person, to the complainant that the product described/required by him will not be sufficient to give full electric load at the premises and that he needed system above 7.5 KVA 96V but the complainant being over confident refused to accept/follow the expert/professional advice and strongly persuaded the system of 7.5KVA 96V and after installation of the same, there was a short circuit in PCB due to overloading and mishandling of system. When OPs No.1 to 3 were  reported that system is not working, immediately, service executive attended the system at site and found PCB defective due to over load and the defective part was replaced immediately without any additional cost, as the product was covered under the warranty. It is denied that the product is suffering from any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant.  The malfunctioning of PCB, if any, was only due to overload which has occurred due to wrong selection of product by the complainant in considering the required power load. Products manufactured/marketed by OP No.1 are world class products and free from any technical/manufacturing defect because each and every product passes through stringent quality check process. OPs No.1 to 3 received a legal notice dated 24.01.2022 from the complainant which was duly replied vide reply dated 14.02.2022 and was posted on 26.02.2022. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OPs No.1 to 3 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with heavy costs.
4.           Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs No.4 and 5 before this Commission, therefore, they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 06.04.2022.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA and affidavit of Janak Raj son of Shri Ram Kishan, R/o VPO Kurali, Tehsil Naraingarh, District Ambala as Annexure CB alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.  However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs No.4 and 5 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OPs No.4 and 5 have been closed by the order of this Commission on 27.07.2023.
6.           On the date of arguments, none put in appearance on behalf of OPs No.1 to 3, therefore this Commission heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also carefully gone through the case file.
7.           During arguments, learned counsel for the complainant took similar pleas as have been taken in the complaint and submitted that despite the fact that the Solar UPS PCU in question was suffering from manufacturing defects, as it did not work despite efforts made by engineers of the OPs to rectify the same and still it is lying non-functional as it is beyond use but on the other hand, by neither replacing the same with a new one or in the alternative refunding the price of the same, the OPs have committed deficiency in providing service.  
8.           The moot question which falls for determination before this Commission  in this case is as to whether, the complainant is entitled to any relief or not. It may be stated here that though the complainant has leveled allegations against the OPs that they failed to repair the Solar UPS PCU  in question as it was suffering from manufacturing defects and the same is beyond use, yet, when we peruse the Field Service Report dated 27.12.2021, Annexure C attached by OPs No.1 to 3 alongwith their reply/affidavit, it is clearly coming out that the complainant had lodged a complaint qua defect in the Solar UPS PCU in question on 27.12.2021, as a result of which, its PCB Assembly was replaced free of cost, by the OPs, being the same under warranty period. Significantly, the complainant has signed the said Field Service Report dated 27.12.2021 certifying that “Equipment has been repaired to my entire satisfaction”. At the same time, not even a single evidence in the shape of any expert report or otherwise, has been placed on record by the complainant to prove his submissions to the effect that the Solar UPS PCU is suffering from any defect and it is still beyond use or non functional after replacing its PCB Assembly free of cost by the OPs.  Mere replacement of PCB Assembly of the Solar UPS PCU in question and that too free of cost will not entitle the complainant to seek refund of the amount paid by him towards the same Thus, since no convincing evidence has been placed on record by the complainant to prove his case, as such, it cannot be said that the Solar UPS PCU in question is suffering from any manufacturing defect or that it is still non-functional. 
9.           In this view of the matter, it is held that since the complainant has failed to prove his case, as such, no relief can be granted to him in this case. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room. 

Announced:- 14.09.2023.