Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/96/2024

RAHUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

CHARANJEET ASSOCIATE PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

01 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/96/2024
Date of Institution	:	19.2.2024
Date of Decision	:	01/08/2024

 

RAHUL SON OF DEVI SINGH RESIDENCE OF HOUSE NO. 1710, DADDUMAJRA COLONY SECTOR 38, CHANDIGARH.

COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1. CHARANJEET ASSOCIATE PVT LTD, PLOT NO 5 CENTRAL WAREHOUSE INDUSTRIAL AREA PHASE -2, CHANDIGARH THROUGH MANAGER.

2. LUMINIOUS POWER TECHNOLOGY PVT.LTD PLOT NO. 150, SECTOR 44, GURGAON, HARYANA THROUGH MANAGER.

Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ajay Singh Parmar, Advocate for complainant
	:	None for OP No.1 (Defence of OP No.1 struck off vide order dated 15.5.2024)
	:	Ms. Ritika Garg, Advocate for OP No.2 (defence of OP No.2 struck off vide order dated 15.5.2024)

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  the complainant in order to save his hard earned money from paying electricity bill amount and avoid fluctuations and cut in hard seasons of winter and summer decided to purchase a solar Panel for permanent source of electricity  from OP No.1. Accordingly, the complainant purchased the Solar Power Gen System, Poly Penal (hereinafter referred to be subject Solar System)from the OP No.1 by paying Rs.32,480/-  on 5.9.2023  vide bill Annexure C-2, which included luminous battery and installation charges.  The OP No.2 also issued warranty card for luminous battery and inverter. The OP No.1 assured the complainant for resolution/ installation free of cost through the local team of the OP No.2.  The engineers of OP No.2 visited the shop of the complainant for installation. It is alleged that the subject solar system was improperly installed horizontally let in sleep mode over the roof  and the engineers of the OPs asked for installation charges. The photo of installed solar system is annexed as Annexure C-4. Thereafter the complainant approached the OPs as their team of installer  was asking for installation charges and also that installation of the solar system was not properly done but the OPs had not paid any heed to the request of the complainant and in this manner both the Ops harassed the complainant as a result of which the  complainant was compelled to approach the OPs through online complaint dated 9.10.23, copy of which is annexed as Annexure C-5.  However, in response to the said complaint, the OP No.2 has intimated the complainant that as the panels have not been installed properly the issue cannot be resolved and the complaint was closed. It is further alleged that as it was assured by both the OPs that the entire solar system will be installed free of cost as installation charges were also included in the tax invoice Annexure C-2 and the said solar system was not properly installed by the OPs as a result of which  the subject solar system did not work properly and as such the complainant was compelled to approach the OPs for the return of the solar system and to refund the paid amount. However the OPs again did not respond to the same and in this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. Despite of ample opportunity given to the OPs to file written version, they failed to file the same within the stipulated period and accordingly the defence of the OPs was struck off vide order dated 15.5.2024.

 

2. In order to prove his claims, the complainant has tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.2 and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments of OP No.2.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  the complainant had purchased the subject Solar System from OP No.1  on paying Rs.32,480/- which also included battery  and installation charges,  and the battery and inverter were manufactured by OP No.2  who had also given warranty  as is also evident from Annexure C-3 and the subject Solar System could not work properly due to improper installation of the panel, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for and for that purpose the documentary evidence led by the complainant is required to be scanned carefully.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-2 clearly indicates that  the complainant purchased the Solar Power Gen System  from OP No.1 vide tax invoice Annexure C-2  for a sum of Rs.32,480/- on 5.9.2023.  Annexure C-3 clearly indicates  warranty for luminous inverter and battery. Annexure C-4  photographs  which indicate that the panel has been installed on the roof of the premises of the complainant improperly. Annexure C-5  is the copy of complaint lodged by the complainant online with the OPs and at page 15 of the paper book clearly indicates that the OPs had closed the complaint of the complainant by intimating that as the system could not  got properly installed  by the customer, issue was closed.
   3. As it stands proved from the tax invoice Annexure C-2 that  installations charges were also included in tax invoice and the OP No.2 intimated the complainant through Annexure C-5 that the solar panel have not been installed properly and thereafter despite of repeated request of the complainant, the OPs have not made any attempt to resolve  the issue by properly installing the solar panels as well as the entire solar system in the  premises of the complainant, it is safe to hold that the aforesaid act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, especially when the entire case set up by the complainant in the consumer complaint as well as the evidence available on record is unrebutted by the OPs. Hence, the instant consumer complaint deserves to be allowed.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund ₹32,480/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the date of purchase till onwards.
2. to pay lump-sum amount of ₹7000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and towards cost of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realization.
6. The complainant shall return the entire solar system to the OPs and the OPs shall collect the same at their own risk and cost.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 01/08/2024			Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			Sd/-
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member