Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/395/2022

Topson Energy Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ghasiram Bagadiya - Opp.Party(s)

Pramod Kumar

08 Jun 2023

ORDER

THE RAJASTHAN STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,JAIPUR

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 395/2022

 

1. Topsun Energy Ltd., through Manager , Gandhi Nagar, Gujarat-38028

2. M/s. Bharat Traders through Manager, Local dealer Topsun Energy Ltd., Station Road, Sikar

….Appellants-Opposite parties no. 1 & 2

Vs.

1. Ghasiram Bagaria s/o Sh.Tulsaram r/o village Kanwarpura, Tehsil Ghod, Distt. Sikar Rajasthan.

….Respondent-complainant

2. Additional Director Horticulture, Directorate of Horticulture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur.

3. Asstt. Director, Department of Horticulture, Sikar.

….Respondents-Opposite parties no. 3 & 4

 

Date of Order 8.6.2023

Before:

Hon'ble Mr. Atul Kumar Chatterjee- Member (Judicial)

Hon'ble Mr. Ramphool Gurjar- Member

 

2

 

Present:

Mr. Pramod Kumar learned counsel for the appellants

Mr. Vikram learned counsel for the respondent no. 1

Mr. Chanduram Yadav & Mr. Om Prakash Yadav learned counsels for respondents no. 2 & 3

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MR.ATUL KUMAR CHATTERJEE, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

This appeal has been filed by the appellants/ opposite parties no. 1 & 2 against the judgment of learned District Consumer Commission, Sikar dated 5.8.2022 passed in Complaint Case No. 89/2018 whereby the complaint filed by respondent no.1/ complainant has been allowed with the direction to repair the defects of the solar pump, home light and battery auto traker within one month and if these are not found repairable, to replace it by another new one. Besides this the complainant has been awarded Rs. 5,000/- each on account of compensation for mental agony and litigation expenses and in failure of payment within one month from the date of

3

 

judgment 9% simple interest till payment on the above amount of Rs. 10,000/-.

 

Briefly stated the relevant facts of this case are that respondent no. 1/complainant filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service against the appellants/opposite parties no. 1 who was the manufacturer and no. 2 the local dealer of the solar pump set installed at complainant's place after obtaining subsidy with the permission of respondents no. 2 & 3/opposite parties no. 3 & 4 respectively. According to the complainant there was five years' warranty on the system and the system created problems just after being purchased. The system got defective more than once and the complainant had faced so many problems in getting defects resolved from appellants/opposite parties no. 1 & 2.

 

The appellants/ opposite parties no. 1 & 2 have in their reply stated that for five years after being purchased the system had worked smoothly and whenever any problem has arosen, it was resolved immediately on being informed by the complainant. They have also pleaded that since the water level has gone down to below 90 mts. whereas the system installed

4

 

was capable to work upto the level of 70 mts. and had the power of 3 KW only. In the course of time respondent no. 1/ complainant himself got the capacity of the system increased by installing additional set up. They have also pleaded that virtually no opinion of technical expert has been submitted to substantiate manufacturing defect in the system.

 

Since the learned DCC, Sikar has dismissed the complaint to the extent of respondents no. 2 & 3 / opposite parties no. 3 & 4 therefore, we do not deem it proper to reiterate the averments of these opposite parties in the appeal.

 

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties no. 1 & 2 is that after institution of the complaint a joint inspection report was conducted on 9.3.2018 by the representative of the local dealer of Sikar, Engineer of manufacturing company and Agriculture Officer, Asstt. Director Horticulture, Sikar wherein it has been mentioned that the auto traker of this solar pump system was replaced just before 2-3 days. The controller of the plant was working perfectly and the fountain from one nozzle was

 

5

 

running 5.1 mm. The battery of DLS was returned after being charged. It has also been mentioned that the module was of 3200 WP and due to increase in depth another panel of 200 WP was given extra. 100 mt. pipe was given for delivery out of which only 10 mt. pipe is available above the earth and 90 mt. pipe has been inserted inside the earth because of which the discharge of water was less because the power of the pump was confined to 75 mts. only. According to the learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties no. 1 & 2 this inspection report has not been taken into consideration by the learned DCC as such the order for repairing or replacing of the system is not sustainable.

 

The learned counsel for respondent no.1 / complainant, while supporting the impugned judgment given in his favour, has contended that during the five years warranty period more than once the complainant had to face grave problem in getting the defects resolved from appellants. As regard the joint inspection report dated 9.3.2018 the learned counsel for respondent no.1/ complainant contends that this has been prepared after filing of the complaint.

 

6

 

The learned counsel for respondents no. 2 & 3/ opposite parties no. 3 & 4 have more or less reiterated the contentions of the reply and have also contended that since they have been exonerated by the learned DCC, Sikar therefore, this appeal is not maintainable against them. The learned counsel for these parties has more or less supported the contentions of the appellants/opposite parties no. 1 & 2 and has also supported the joint inspection report dated 9.3.2018.

 

Having considered the above contentions and going through the record, we find that the joint inspection report dated 9.3.2018 was available in record before the learned DCC prior to passing of the impugned judgment dated 5.8.2022 yet no mention of this report has been there in the impugned judgment. From the bare perusal of the impugned judgment itself it is clear that whenever there was any defect in the system and the same was informed to the appellants/opposite parties no. 1 & 2, the same was cured within short time. The allegation of respondent no. 1/complainant is that he had to suffer mental agony in getting the problem resolved from the appellants/ opposite parties no. 1 & 2 the manufacturer and the local dealer. The case of appellants/opposite parties no. 1 & 2

7

 

is that since the water level has got down (below 90 mts.) and the system could work efficiently upto the level of 70 mt. as such because of increase in the depth the efficiency has got down.

 

The learned DCC has taken into account the agony of respondent no.1/ complainant on the ground that more than once the complainant had to lodge complaint and get the issues resolved for which he had to suffer mental agony but since there is no contradiction of the joint inspection report dated 9.3.2018 wherein the Agriculture Officer Asstt. Director Horticulture, Sikar is one of the signatories besides the representative of the appellants/opposite parties no. 1 & 2, we are of the view that this report shows that whatever defects were there in respect of the auto taker, controller, battery etc. they have been cured. It has also been mentioned that due to increase in depth extra panel of 200 WP was provided and the 100 mt. pipe delivered by the appellants to the complainant was inside the earth upto the level of 90 mt. and 10 mt. was lying outside and due to increase in depth the water discharge was lesser.

 

8

 

In view of this joint inspection report dated 9.3.2018 and the fact that there has been no evidence in contradiction of it from the side of complainant/ respondent no. 1, we find that virtually the alleged defects in the system were removed and the system was working satisfactorily therefore, the impugned judgment, to the extent of repairing or replacing the system, appears to be unsustainable in the eye of law and is found liable to be set aside in the appeal.

 

So far as the amount of mental agony and litigation expenses @ Rs. 5000/- each are concerned, in our humble view having regard to the obvious mental agony and litigation expenses, we deem it proper to uphold this part of the impugned judgment of the learned DCC Sikar.

 

Based on the above discussions, the appeal filed by the appellants/opposite parties no. 1 & 2 is allowed partially and the part of the impugned judgment whereby the learned DCC Sikar has ordered to repair and/or replace the system is hereby set aside. However, the remaining portion of the impugned judgment regarding amount of mental agony and litigation

 

9

 

expenses @ Rs. 5000/- each and other part of the impugned judgment is retained as such.

 

The appeal stands disposed off as above. Parties shall bear their own costs.

 

(Ramphool Gurjar) (A.K.Chatterjee)

Member Member (Judicial)

 

 

 

nm