5.8.08<br /> Sri.K.Gopalan,President<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section12 of the consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation, Rs.35, 200/- as electricity charge paid by the complainant to KSEB, Chokli from December 2003 to July 2004 and to replace CFL street lights with cost.<br /> The case of the complainant in brief is as follows: - The opposite party made representation and assured to supply better quality and standard CFL streetlight. Complainant accepted the tender of opposite party. Opposite party executed an agreement on 18th July2003.The opposite party agreed to supply CFL Street light viz.,‘100 numbers of automatic street light and 100 numbers of Ordinary Street light’<br /> In the month of December 2003 the opposite party installed 200 numbers of street lights in various parts of Chokli Grama Panchayath area and assured perfect and effective functioning of the same. As per the contract with the Kerala State electricity Board the complainant has to remit Rs.11/- per month as electricity charge for each street light. Thus the complainant has to pay Rs.4400/- per month towards electricity charges of street light. The streetlight installed by the opposite party is defective and substandard in quality. The functioning of the street light is defective and improper. As per the contract opposite party is liable to replace street lights within 15 days with the installation of the fault and to install street light in perfect condition. Though complainant repeatedly requested opposite party refused to replace Defective Street light which caused much financial loss and hardship to the complainant and it is adversely affected the image of administration of the panchayath. On 16.6.2004 the complainant issued a registered notice to opposite party demanding specific performance of the terms of the contract. The notice was duly received by the opposite party on 22.6.2004. On 19.7.06 the complainant issued a lawyer notice calling upon the replacement of defective street lights and also to pay Rs.5, 00,000/- as compensation and Rs.35, 200/- as the electricity charges paid to KSEB. Opposite party received notice on 24.7.04 but refused to comply the demand therein. The Panchayath received complaint from the general public and those grievances could not be redressed due to the negative approach of the opposite party. On account of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party the complainant suffered great loss for which the complainant assess Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The complainant also suffered the loss of Rs.35, 200/- as electricity charge to KSEB. Opposite party refused to perform the contractual obligation and hence this compliant. <br /> The opposite party filed version after receiving notice from the Forum. But he subsequently became absent and happened to set exparte. The opposite party contended in the version are as follows:- The opposite party admitted that he submitted his tender on 6.9.03 and supplied CFL Street lights as per the specification stipulated by the complainant. As per the terms the opposite party offered 15 months warranty for 2x11 watts CFL street lights units against any manufacturing defects from the day of supply to the Gramma Panchayth office. On several occasions complaints were received and it was timely attended and verified by this opposite party with utmost satisfaction of the complainant. The complainant also demanded the opposite party to replace some CFL lamps which was supplied by some other companies to the complainant for which the opposite party is not willing. This opposite party’s products are certified by Indian Standard Organization and this opposite party is the supplier of the CFL street lights to the various corporations, Muncipaoities and Pacnchayaths of Kerala. If the quality of the products of the opposite party is substandard it is to be proved by a technical officer. If at all complaint pertaining to the products supplied by the opposite party is to be checked and verified by the experts in the field. The opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues were framed for consideration:-<br /> 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 3. Relief’s and costs.<br /> Evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the complainant and Exts.A1 to A9 marked on the side of complainant. <br /> IssueNos.1 to 3<br /> Admittedly the opposite party entered into an agreement Ext.A1 with the complainant and installed 200 CFL street light units in December 2003 and received Rs.1, 74,450/- on 17.12.2003. Ext.A3 cash bill. Ext.A4 letter of opposite party and Ext.A5 receipt issued by opposite party proves the payment of Rs.174450/- on 17.12.03. The complainant’s allegation is that the street light installed by the opposite party is defective. As per the agreement Ext.A1 opposite party is legally bound to replace the faulty street light within15 days of default. Ext.A1. clause 4 binds thus, “It is also agreed to give 15 months warrantee for the CFL street lights unit against any manufacturing defects from the date of supply to the Panchayath office. The repairs /replacements will be done either at the Panchayath office/local KSEB office by the manufacturer of the products, Kinetic systems, Chungam, Feroke, and Kozhikode within 15 days on intimation of the fault over phone or through written intimation from the Panchayath office”. The complainant alleges that opposite party refused to replace the CFL street lights even though repeated request. Ext.A1 clause 4creates legal liability upon the opposite party to do repairs and replacement as and when necessary. Ext.A6 is the notice issued by complaint to opposite party. Complainant stated in affidavit that opposite party has received the notice, but did not comply the demand therein. / Ext.A7 is the copy of the legal notice sent by the complaint to opposite party to replace the street lights. Ext.A8, acknowledgement makes it assure that the opposite party has received the notice. Opposite party has not done anything to cure the defect even after receiving the lawyer notice. He has not even sent a reply. Ext.C1 is the report of the expert Commissioner. Commissioner inspected the CFL street lights after giving registered notice to both parties. But commission report pointed out that opposite party was absent at the time of inspection. Commissioner stated in his report that most of the faulty street lights, either the main PCB or the CFL lamp was found faulty. It was also reported that the local enquiry revealed that many of the street lights were dead within one or two months of installation. Clause4 of the agreement agreed to give 15 months warranty. In the light of the above discussed facts we have no hesitation to hold that there is deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The Panchayath took decision in its meeting held on 28.7.04 to take legal action against opposite party.Ext.A9 is the decision of the Panchayath. The decision of the panchayath has taken after discussion upon the separate agenda with respect to the repair of CFL Street light. It shows that it is an important issue as far as the panchayth is concerned. This is an issue, the entire people of the panchayath takes care and comments upon which affects the image of the administration to a great extent<br /> This is an issue the entire general public of the panchayath takes seriously since it affects their daily life. Every protest adversely affects the administration of the panchayath .It definitely creates headache to the Board of Grama Panchayath. This also creates huge financial loss.Exts.A3, 4, and 5 proves that the opposite party has received Rs.1, 74,450/- as the price of the CFL street light. Panchayath legally bound to pay electricity charges as per the contract with the Kerala State Electricity Board @ Rs.11/- per month as electricity charge for each street light. It is stated that Panchayath has paid Rs.35, 200/- as electricity charges. Considering the above facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2.09,650/- to compensate the loss sustained by the panchayth and a sum of Rs.500/- as cost of this proceedings. Hence these issues are found in favour of the complainant and order is passed accordingly.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2, 09,650/- (Rupees Two lakhs Nine Thousand Six hundred and Fifty only)for the loss sustained by the Panchayath and a sum of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost of this proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite parties under the provisions of the consumer protection Act.<br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> President Member Member<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complianant<br /> A1.Copy of the agreement executed by complainant and opposite party<br /> A2.Copy of tender<br /> A3.Copy of the cash bill dt.17.12.03 issued by OP<br /> A4. Copy of the letter dt.17.12.03 issued by OP to complainant<br /> A5.Copyof the cash receipt dt.17.12.03 issued by OP<br /> A6.Copy of the letter No.A2.200/04 dt.16.6.06 sent to OP<br /> A7. Copy of the lawyer notice dtg.19.7.04 sent to OP<br /> A8. Postal acknowledgment card<br /> A9.Copy of the resolutiondt.28.7.04.<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party:Nil<br /> Witness examined for either side: Nil<br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur<br />