Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 08.
Instituted on : 02.01.2023.
Decided on : 05.10.2023.
Umed singh s/o Sh. Harphool Singh House no.1274, Sector-03, Rohtak.
………..Complainant.
Vs.
- Dealer Numberdar Enterprises behind Nissan Car Showroom, Jind Road, Rothak, Eail:
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER.
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.Pardeep Singh proprietor in person alongwith Sh. Sandeep Saini
Advocate for opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No. 2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per complainant are that he, after impressed by the video of opposite party No.2 got the Solar System installed through the opposite party No.1. As per the video of the company, it was told that the alleged solar penal will produce per 1kw 6 units per day. But in reality, it produced only 3.85 units per KW. (meaning thereby as per the opposite parties the 3.360KW plant was to produce 3810 units w.e.f. 28.04.2022 to 01.11.2022 but it produced only 2450 units and it produced 1360 less units). Hence it proves that for selling their products, the opposite parties have made false advertisement. Complainant complained the same to the opposite parties and also send a registered letter to the opposite parties but the opposite parties refused to receive the same. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amount to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to install an additional penal so that complainant can get 20 units per day, to compensate for 1360 less units produced till 01.11.2022 and also to pay compensation of Rs.200000/- on account of deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Notice sent to opposite party No.2 through registered post received back with the report of refusal. As such opposite party No.2 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.02.2023 of this Commission. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that answering opposite party has no concern with manufacturing of solar unit and with publicity of the same because the same is being done by the manufacturer as mentioned by the complainant himself. The complainant purchased the solar unit and the same was installed by the answering respondent as per direction of the manufacturer i.e. respodnento.2. No warranty was given by the manufacturer regarding production of 6 units per day. The complainant has not given any proof that any less production was given by the solar unit. It is further submitted that the production of unit also depends upon the temperature and weather. The answering respondent has no concern with the production of the units because the same is concerning with the respondent no.2. In case there is manufacturing defect, the respondent no.2 is responsible for the same. It is prayed that complaint of the complainant qua the answering respondent may kindly be dismissed with costs.
3. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed his evidence on dated 05.06.2023. Opposite party no.1 in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, document Ex.R1 and closed his evidence on 25.07.2023.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
5. We have minutely perused the documents placed on record by the complainant. As per the bill Ex.C8, complainant had purchased a Solar power generation system from the opposite party No.1 for a sum of Rs.137760/- and as per certificate Ex.C9, the alleged system was installed at the house of the complainant in compliance with Govt. guidelines. As per document Ex.C10, a complaint was made by the complainant regarding less production of alleged solar system. In this complaint it is submitted that initially it was assured by the opposite party through their video that the 1kw solar penal will produce 6 units per day. But in reality, it produced only 3.76 units per KW. Complainant has also placed on record copy of complaint dated 22.06.2022 ‘Annexure-JN-A’, as per which it is submitted that the panel installed by the opposite parties were giving electricity less than the normal panels. We have also perused the CD placed on record by the complainant as Ex.C12, which shows that it has been specifically stated in the video by the Director Deepak Kumar that the solar penal of 1Kw will generate 6 units per day if we took the average of 300 days. But perusal of the bill Ex.C1 shows that it generated 2450 units in 126 days w.e.f. 28.06.2022 to 01.11.2022. Another bill is also placed on record as Ex.C3. The perusal of this electricity bill shows that the solar penal generates only 529 units in 61 days i.e. from 01.11.2022 to 01.01.2023. The perusal of both the documents show that there is huge decline in production of the units. Hence misleading advertisement has been made by the opposite party No.2 regarding its product. As such there is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 being the manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 17.02.2023 of this Commission which shows that opposite party No.2 has nothing to say in the matter and all the allegations leveled by the complainant against the opposite party No.2 regarding production of less units by the solar penal stands proved.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.40000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) as compensation on account of loss caused by the opposite party no.2 to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as compensation on account of unfair trade practice and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.
7. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
05.10.2023
................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
………………………………..
Tripti Pannu, Member.
................................................
Vijender Singh, Member
