Haryana

Bhiwani

CC/836/2019

Krishan Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Cytec - Opp.Party(s)

Raman Tanwar

08 Dec 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHIWANI.

 

                  Consumer Complaint No. : 836 of 2019

                  Date of Institution             : 25.11.2019

                                                           Date of Decision               : 08.12.2023

 

 

Krishan Kumar son of Shri Dharampal R/o villag Umravat, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.

 

          ……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

The Managing Director/Manager/Proprietor/Authorized Signatory Cytec Renewable Energy System & Technologies, 31, New Bajrang Bali Colony, Rohtak Gate, Bhiwani.

….. Opposite Party.

 

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT, 1986.

 

 

BEFORE:     Mrs. Saroj Bala Bohra, Presiding Member.

Ms. Shashi Kiran Panwar, Member.

 

Present:-      Sh. Raman Tanwar, Advocate for complainant.

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for OP.

 

ORDER

 

Saroj Bala  Bohra, Presiding Member.

 

1.                 Brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant purchased a 200 LPD ETC Based Solar Water Heating System (Supreme Solar) for an amount of Rs.34,000/- on 16.02.2015 which was having warranty for five years from the date of purchase i.e. 16.02.2015 to 16.02.2020. It has alleged that the solar system was damaged  and was not working properly. Complaint was made but it could not repaired despite assurance. Legal notice dated 03.10.2019 was sent to the OP but of no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been preferred alleging suffering mental and physical harassment  to the complainant. In the end, prayer made for directions against the OP to pay Rs.34,000/- as purchase amount of the solar system, Rs.3.00 lac on account of harassment and Rs.21,000/- as litigation charges. Any other relief, to which this Commission deems fit may also be awarded in favour of complainant.

2.                 OP appeared through counsel and filed reply raising preliminary objections qua cause of action, locus standi, maintainability and suppression of material facts. On merits, purchase of the solar system has been admitted by OP but it is added that complainant has not disclosed the fact of receiving subsidy amount and electric benefits from the product. It is submitted that only part side water tank of the product was damaged due to negligence of the complainant as the same was damaged by the monkeys  as the product is installed in open and no safety measures has been adopted by the complainant. It is submitted that the product was purchased by complainant in Rs.34,000/- and subsidy of Rs.12,000/-13,000/- was given to the complainant on the product. Further, complainant has also received Rs.12,000/- from Electricity Board in lieu of electric benefit from said product. The warranty of the product was for its performance. In the end, it is submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the product and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.                 Complainant side, in evidence, tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence.

5.                 On the other side, affidavit Ex. RW1/A  was tendered in evidence and closed the evidence.

 6.                We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.

7.                 Complainant to prove his case has placed on record purchase bill of the solar system as Annexure C-1 whereby it is revealed that it was purchased in Rs.34,000/-.  The alleged warranty by complainant has not been denied by the OP.  Complainant further to strengthen his case has filed his affidavit which corroborates his version in the complaint.  The OP has contended that subsidy was provided to the complainant but he has not placed on record any document in this regard whereas he has only filed his affidavit. The OP must have a record qua paying of an amount through an instrument but nothing of such sort placed on record which means that complainant has nothing to say qua the subsidy to the complainant.

8.                 In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the OP is deficient & negligent in providing proper services to the complainant as well as have sold the defective product to the complainant. Accordingly, the complaint is allowed and the OP is directed to comply with the following directions within 40 days from the date of order:-

1. To refund Rs.34,000/-(Rs.Thirty four thousand) to the complainant subject to return of the old/defective solar product/system. The product will be taken back by the OP from the place of installation, at its own expenses.
2. To pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five thousand) on account of harassment suffered by complainant at the hands of OP.
3. To pay Rs.5500/- (Rs. Five thousand five thousand) as litigation expenses.

                    In case of default, the OP shall liable to pay simple interest @ 9% per annum on all the aforesaid awarded amounts for the period of default. Certified copies of the order be sent to parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.  

 

Announced.           

Dated: 08.12.2023