DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 25h day of October 2021
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V, President
: Smt.Vidya.A, Member
Date of filing:24.09.2020
CC/114/2020
Radhakrishnan
S/o.Kuttan Nair
Vinayaka Nagar - Complainant
T S Road, Mannarkkad Post
Palakkad Dt.
(Adv. Pradeep).
Vs
James
Managing Director
Samstronic Power Systems - Opposite party
Thara Building, Ayyanthole,
Thrissur.
O R D E R
By Smt Vidya A, Member
Brief Facts of the complaint
1. The Complainant in this case is a retired School Teacher. The Opposite Party is the Managing Director of Samstronic Power System dealing with installation of Solar Panel System for domestic and other purposes. The Complainant after noticing the Opposite Party’s advertisement contacted him through telephone for installing a Solar Panel System for his domestic purpose. Subsequently the opposite Party visited the Complainant’s house with his staff and made the complainant believe that they are providing good service and periodical check up including 5 years guarantee for Inverter/UPS, 10 years guarantee for Solar Panel and 10 years guarantee for Battery and also provide routine service whenever necessary. On believing his words, the Complainant installed 100 Watt. Solar panel System at his residence for Rs 1,15,000 (One lakh fifteen thousand only) on 15.04.2017.
The Opposite Party took the old inverter battery of the Complainant and after discount the Complainant paid Rs 1 lakh to the Opposite Party and he issued a guarantee card bearing the signature of the authorized signatory and a price slip in his own handwriting.
At the time of installation, the Opposite Party assured the Complainant that except A/C all other house hold electronic items including fan, mixy, grinder and lights can be smoothly operated with the Solar Panel. But from February 2019 onwards, the Complainant could not use the Panel beyond half an hour. The complainant informed the Opposite Party about the problem in the Solar Panel through telephone. After that he contacted the Opposite Party many times for getting it repaired. Finally on 15/03/2020 , he approached the Opposite Party and asked him to cure the defect in the Panel as per the guarantee and proposal made by the Opposite Party at the time of installation. But till date the Opposite Party did not make any attempt to cure the defect or replace the panel as per the guarantee.
The deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party had caused irreparable loss and agony to the Complainant. The Opposite party purposefully installed a spurious product in order to obtain illegal gain. The complainant had to pay exorbitant electricity charge during these period. The Opposite Party failed to provide proper service to the Complainant.
The Lawyer notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party returned showing the reason “addressee left”. Due to the defect in the product, the Complainant is struggling at the time of power failure and the electricity consumption became doubled.
So this complaint is filed for directing the Opposite Party to replace the defective product or to pay Rs One Lakh towards the cost and installation charges of the Panel System and Rs 75,000/-as compensation towards the mental agony and financial loss suffered by the Complainant and cost of this litigation.
2. Complaint admitted and notice issued to the Opposite party. The notice issued to the Opposite Party returned stating “left”. The Complainant produced fresh address of the Opposite Party and the notice sent in that address returned with an endorsement ‘refused’. So notice deemed to be served on the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party’s name called, absent and set ex-parte.
3. Complainant filed chief affidavit along with documents. Ext A1 to
A4 were marked and Complainant was heard.
4. Main Points arising for consideration
(1) Whether there is any deficiency in service/Unfair Trade
Practice on the part of the Opposite Party?
(2) If so, what is the relief as to cost and compensation?
5. Points 1 & 2
We have perused the affidavit and documents produced by the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party installed a 100 Watts Solar Panel System at his residence on 15/04/2017 for Rs 1,15,000/- and issued a guarantee card on the same date offering 5 years guarantee for Inverter/UPS, 10 years guarantee for Solar Panel and 5 year guarantee for Battery. The guarantee card is produced and marked as Ext A1.
6. Further according to him, the Opposite party took the old inverter
Battery of the Complainant and after discount he paid Rs. One
Lakh (Rs 1,00,000/-) to the Opposite Party and issued a price slip
in his own handwriting. The price slip which is said to be issued
issued by the Opposite Party is produced by the Complainant. But
it did not have any date, seal or signature of the Opposite party
and the amount is written in a piece of paper. So it cannot be
admitted in evidence to prove payment.
7. The Complainant states that the Opposite Party, at the time of installation of the Solar panel assured him that except A/C, all other house hold electronic items including fan, mixy, grinder and lights can be operated smoothly with the Solar Panel. But in February
2019, the product became defective and he could not use the panel beyond half an hour. Though he contacted the Opposite party several times asking him to cure the defect or replace the product, the Opposite Party did not care to attend the Complainant’s grievance.
8. It is seen from the complainant’s contention that the Solar Panel
became defective within two years of its purchase. It is well within the warranty period as per Ext A1. So the Opposite Party is bound to cure the defect or replace the product or refund the amount to the complainant. According the complainant he did not do so even after repeated requests. So there is clear deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party for which he is liable to compensate the complainant.
9. It is evident from the complainant’s pleadings that he had undergone
hardship at the time of power failure and because of the spurious product he had to pay exorbitant electricity charges during the period. The complainant had suffered mental agony and financial loss when the newly installed Solar Panel System which is highly expensive became defective within two years of its purchase. The Opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant for that.
10. Though the complainant produced the guarantee card issued by the
Opposite Party which is admitted in evidence, there is no proper evidence to show the transfer of cost of the purchased item to the opposite party. So we are not able to allow all the prayers in the complaint.
11. Since the Opposite Party remained ex-parte, the evidence adduced
by the complainant stands unchallenged.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. We direct the Opposite party.
(1) To cure the defect in the Solar Panel System free of cost.
(2) To pay Rs 20, 000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) as
compensation towards the financial loss and mental agony
suffered by the complainant.
(3) To pay Rs 5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as cost of this
litigation
The Order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 25th day of October 2021.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President.
Sd/-
Vidya.A Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1 – Guarantee Card issued by the Opposite Party dated 15.04.2017
Ext.A2 – Lawyer notice dated 10.08.2020 issued by the Complaint’s Counsel to the opposite party
Ext.A3 – Returned Lawyer Notice obtained from Postal Authority
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
NIL
Cost : Rs.5000/-
