Complaints filed on: 10-10-2022
Disposed on: 17-04-2023
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF APRIL 2023
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LL.B., MBA., MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER
CC.No.147/2022
G.M.Gangadharaiah
#502, Near Vivekananda School,
Ganapathi Temple Road,
Guluru Post, Tumakuru Taluk,
……….Complainant
( In person)
V/s
Jagadeesh Enterprises,
Behind Baddihalli Lake, Ringroad,
Kyathasandra, Tumakuru Taluk
……….Opposite Party
(By Sri. Himanand D.C., Advocate)
:ORDER:
BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OP U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OP to pay Rs.74,000/- under different heads for the deficiency in service on the part of OP.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant purchased the Solar set from the OP and from the date of purchase, the solar is not working properly, water is leaking from the solar and thereby their RCC was damaged due to leakage of water from the solar. Hence, the complainant complained to the OP about the defect in the solar and thereafter the employees of the OP came to the house of the complainant to rectify the solar, but they failed to repair the solar and finally one person from the OP side by name Murthy came and inspected the solar and told to the complainant and his owner that there is a problem in the drum and also there is other problem in the solar. The OP assured the complainant that they will replace the drum, but thereafter postponed to replace/rectify the defects and finally told that they will not responsible for that and the manufacturer is liable to replace/rectify the drum and other problems. Due to the leakage of the water their RCC got damaged and they repaired the same by spending Rs.40,000/- and also paid more electricity bills due to repair of the solar. Due to deficiency of service on the side of OP, they suffered mental agony. Hence, without any alternative, the complainant filed this complaint.
3. After receipt of notice, the OP appeared and filed their version contending that they are not at all liable in any angle as they are the wholesalers and the manufacturing company and dealer has not made as party to the proceedings. The OP being a seller, do not keep any product or material for sale which are unfit for consumption. The complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, misconceived and baseless and hence the same is dismissed. It is further contended that the leakage was informed to the company and the only requeistion for replacement is that the old one shall be returned back to the company and a new one will be issued instantly to which the complainant has not assisted the technician or this OP at any point of time. It is further contended that as soon as received the information about leakage, their technician has reached and closed the gate valve and hence question of leakage does not arise at all. The complainant refused to assist the technician and even the complainant refused to remove the old tank. This shows that the complainant has filed this complaint to gain unlawfully in the form of compensation. The other allegation made the complaint is totally denied by the OP. On these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and also produced some copies of documents. On behalf of OP, one Smt.Yashaswini K.J., Proprietor of OP has filed her affidavit evidence.
5. We have heard the arguments complainant in person and counsel for OP.
6. On perusal of pleadings and documents, the points that would arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP?
2) Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?
7. Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: Partly in the Affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:REASONS:
8. On perusal of the complaint averments, version and documents/exhibits, it is seen that the complainant purchased the solar set from the OP. From the date of purchase, the solar is not working properly, water is leaking from the solar tank. The complainant complained to the OP about the defects in the solar, thereafter the employee of the OP came to the complainant’s house and inspected the solar. After inspection, he told to the complainant and to his owner/employer that there is a problem in the drum and in the solar. The OP assured the complainant that they will replace the drum, but thereafter postponed to replace/rectify the defects on one or the other reasons.
9. The OP contended that as soon as received the information about the leakage in the solar by the complainant, the OP technician has reached the complainant’s house and closed the gate value and therefore question of leakage does not arise at all. The complainant refused to assist the technician and refused to replace the old tank.
10. In the Course of arguments, the counsel for OP submitted that the OP is ready to replace the drum and rectify the defects in the solar. But the complainant submitted that if the OP replaces the drum with warranty, then only he accepts for replacement. But it is not fair to claim/request for new warranty after replacement of tank/drum. From this attitude of the complainant, there is delay in replacement/rectify the defects.
11. The complainant in his complaint alleged that due to leakage of the water, RCC of the house was damaged and got repaired the same by spending Rs.40,000/-. But in this regard, the complainant has not produced any documents to prove the same. Moreover, the OP has stated that as soon as received the complaint about the leakage, their employee reached the house of the complainant and closed the gate valve. To disprove the submission made by the OP, the complainant also not produced any evidence. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for the same. Further, the complainant alleged that due to defect occurred in the solar, he has purchased the electric geyser and thereby he is paying the electric bill of Rs.1,000/- per month. But in this regard also the complainant has not produced electricity bills to show that he is paying electricity bill of Rs.1,000/- per month. It is not in dispute that there is a defect in the solar set. Hence, due to defect and delay in rectifying the defect, the complainant compelled to approach this Commission. Hence, the OP is liable to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses. Accordingly, we pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
The OP is directed to replace the drum/tank of the solar set and rectify the defects if any in the solar set.
The OP is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- for litigation expenses.
It is further directed that the OP shall comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties
