Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this complaint u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986.

                   2. The case of the complainant is stated as follows:  The complainant who has purchased a 3 KVA/96V Solar Power Unit and it’s batteries for an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- and installed the same at his new residence on15.09.2013.  The complainant pays the whole amount through cheque.  The opposite parties made to believe that the product will be having replacement warranty of 3 years on the PCV unit, 7 years warranty on the batteries and 25 years warranty on the solar panels.    The complainant contented that the 1^st opposite party is the Managing Director and also the manufacturer of the said Solar Power Unit.  The 2^nd opposite party is the Service Manager of the said system and the 3^rd opposite party is another Service Manager of said system.  The 4^th opposite party is the retailer who booked the order and installed the system at the complainant’s residence.  According to the complainant, though the system is installed on 15.09.2013 the opposite party did not issue the original bills, warranty cards etc., to the complainant though it was demanded.  The said system was worked perfectly for the 1^st month and thereafter the power decreased day by day and at last stopped its function.  As a result, the complainant approached the 4^th opposite party several times through him he received the details of other opposite parties.  Though the complainant informed the defect to the opposite party No.1 to 3 or his attempt was in vain.  According to the complainant, some persons from the opposite parties 2 and 3 accompanied by the staff of the 4^th opposite party arrived and opened the PCV unit and removed certain parts.  Even though they have taken the removed parts the defect of the system was either rectified.   When the system became failed the complainant is forced to depend K.S.E.B for the entire electric energy.  As a result the complainant was made to pay an electricity bill of Rs.4,500/- per month.

                 3. The complainant again contented that, now the system is lying useless at his residence and the opposite parties are legally bound to compensate the entire damages.  According to him, if the Solar Unit was working, the complainant would not be liable to pay any amount as K.S.E.B charges.  All the above evils are caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite parties.  According to him, the solar unit fixed by the opposite parties is only working as a UPS/Inverter, getting charged from the K.S.E.B power grid and the said system is not produced any solar energy.   The complainant again contented that, he had launched several complaints from the opposite parties from several instances from the month of October 2013 the said complaints neither attended by the opposite parties nor it rectified.  According to him, sometimes if a complaint is launched it is registered and subsequently through SMS they informed that the complaint is rectified without even attending the complaint.  Hence the complainant filed this case before the Forum for the refund of the entire amount of Rs.4,50,000/-  with 18% interest and for compensation and cost etc. 

                    4. This Forum entertains the complaint and issued notice to the opposite parties 1 to 4.  Except the 4^th opposite party all are entered appearance and filed their version.  The 4^th opposite party is declared exparte by this Forum. 

           5. The 1^st opposite party to 3rd opposite party filed their version as follows:  According to the opposite parties No. 1 to 3, the   complainant had never directly purchased any Solar Power Unit from opposite party No.1 to 3 and never paid any amount as alleged by the complainant.  It is stated that, in the absence of any consideration this case is not comes under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.  It is further stated that, the 4^th opposite party supplied and installed the system at the complainant’s premises.  Purchase and installation of the system are not within the knowledge of the opposite parties.  According to them, the 1^st opposite party is the company which manufactures the Solar Power Unit.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the managers of first opposite party company.  According to them, this contesting opposite parties are not aware of any of the promises of the first opposite party as alleged.  This contesting opposite parties again submitted that, when the product was sent to the 4^th opposite party the warranty card is already kept in the box and the serving of warranty card to the complainant is not known to him.  According to them, when and where they receive the complaint from the complainant they inspected the solar power unit and rectified the defects.  The technicians of the 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the installation of the power panel in the terrace of the building is not properly done and no direct sunlight is falling in to the solar panel.  The branches of the trees around the house have to be removed so that the panel can be worked properly.  The opposite party again contented that, whenever the complainant intimated any grievance, they timely attend the complaint and rectified the defects.  According to them, the product not suffered any manufacturing defects.  They again contented that, the non-functioning of the solar system is due to the absence of direct sunlight.  According to them, they are not responsible for the huge electricity bill of the complainant and the said electricity bill is not due to the illegal act of the opposite parties.  They again contented that, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in this complaint and there is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the contesting opposite party is prayed to dismiss this complaint with cost of opposite party.

         6. We peruse the complaint, version of the opposite parties and the records available before the Forum and we frame the following issues in this case.

1. Whether the petition is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the complainant succeeds to prove deficiency or unfair trade practice against the opposite parties?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

         7. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and he is examined as PW1 in this case.  When he is examined as PW1, Ext.A1 to Ext.A4 were marked.  Ext.A1 is the legal notice send to the opposite party.  Ext.A2 is its postal receipt.  Ext.A3 series is the Instruction manual, Warranty card and Installation certificates and Ext.A4 series is the electricity bills.  Though the opposite party filed a proof affidavit the said person not turned up for the examination.  Hence the case posted for hearing the counsel for the complainant filed an argument note in favour of the complainant.

          8. As per the deposition of the complainant, it is deposed that being a consumer of the opposite party he purchased 3 KBA/96B Solar Power Unit and its batteries for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and the same is installed in his residence on 15.09.2013.  There is 3 years of a replace warranty for this unit and also a 7 years warranty is allowed to the batteries.  According to him, 25 years warranty is granted to the solar panels.  Even though, the complainant demanded the warranty cards no such bills or warranty cards were issued to him.  He further deposed that the product was working perfectly for the 1^st month and thereafter the power decrease day by day and lastly the system was totally failed.  On request of this PW1, the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite party accompanied by the staff of 4^th opposite party opened the PCV unit and removed certain parts from the system.  But they are not reinstalled the removed parts of the system.  Hence the entire system was failed and the PW1 had to depend on KSEB for the entire supply to his residence.  All these are happened due to the deficiency in service of all opposite parties 1 to 4.  The complainant categorically stated that as per the terms and conditions stated in the warranty the 1^st opposite party is highly responsible for rectifying the defect of the system.  He again alleged that the entire system is having manufacturing defect from the date of installation.  PW1 deposed that the solar power unit was installed for curtailing the KSEB bill.  It is also come out in evidence to see that even though the system is installed due to it non-functioning the complainant is compelled to pay the KSEB bill even in higher rate. According to him, he used to pay an electricity bill for Rs.4,500/- per month to KSEB as a result of the illegal acts of the opposite parties.  The Ext.A4 series is the electricity bill which shows the exorbitant electricity bill payment.  As per Ext.A3 series, the instruction manual warranty card and installation certificates are proved.  As per the warranty card, the opposite parties are liable to rectify the defect of the system within the warranty period.  As per Ext.A3, the defect of the system noted within the warranty period and they are also answerable for it.  It is true that the opposite party strongly opposed this allegation of the complainant through their version and through their proof affidavit.  But it is interesting to see that even though the opposite party pleaded to the effect that the solar system is not suffering any mechanical defect and due to the absence of direct sunrise the system is failed.  In order to prove the case of opposite parties, they filed a commission application for appointing an expert commissioner to ascertain these facts.  Due to unknown reasons, the opposite parties were not ready to remit the commission batta as ordered by this Forum, even though the commission application was allowed.  At this juncture, the allegation of mechanical defect of the solar system by the complainant has to be considered more probable than the stand taken by the opposite parties.  As stated earlier, though the opposite party filed a proof affidavit before the Forum for their evidence, but due to unknown reason the opposite parties did not turn up for adducing evidence on the basis of the proof affidavit.  The failure of the opposite party to adduce evidence at the time of opposite parties’ evidence is also a context of reasoning against them.  After the closing of evidence, we have given opportunity to hear both sides but the opposite parties did not turn up for hearing.  At the same time, the counsel appearing for the complainant filed an argument note in favour of the complainant.

          9. Point Nos.1 to 3:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point Nos.1 to 3 together.  It is already discussed above that the main contention of the opposite parties 1 to 3 to the effect that the case is not maintainable before the Forum.  When we peruse the evidence before us, it is reveal that the complainant purchased a solar energy system from 4^th opposite party and 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties are the manufacturers and dealers of the said system.  The relationship with 4^th opposite party is also not denied by opposite party 1 to 3.  There is no dispute with regard to the receipt of consideration also.  Hence it is found that the complainant is a consumer of opposite parties 1 to 4.  Hence Point No.1 found in favour of the complainant. 

          10. The next question to be considered is whether the opposite party is committed any deficiency in service against the complainant.  As we discussed earlier, the opposite parties 1 to 3 admitted that when they received the complaint of the complainant with regard to the power performance of the solar system, they send some technicians along with 4^th opposite party and taken certain parts of the system for reinstallation.  It is also evident to see that even though they removed certain parts of the system they did not reinstall the parts so far.  Regarding the failure of reinstallation, the opposite parties failed to give any sufficient explanation.  It is true that opposite parties alleged that the solar system’s poor functioning is due to the lack of direct sunrise.  In order to prove this fact the opposite parties has not taken any steps or adduce any further evidence.  As per Ext.A3 series, the instruction manual, warranty card and installation certificate the solar system of the complainant is safely comes under the warranty period.  As per this warranty, the manufacturer is duty bound to replace, maintain or repair the article within warranty time.  Here the opposite parties are totally failed to act as per the terms and condition of the warranty.  These act of the opposite parties are clearly comes under unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

          11. The next issue to be considered is whether the complainant is eligible to get compensation from the opposite parties.  It is clear that the complainant spent a huge amount Rs.4,50,000/- for the system for saving electricity bill.  But it is proved that the solar system is not functioning well from 10/13 onwards. The exorbitant electricity bill, which also was proved through Ext.A4 series is a cogent evidence in this aspect.  When considering the entire evidence and exhibits marked in favour of the complainant, we find that complaint is to be allowed.  All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the entire loss and damages sustained by the complainant.  The complainant is succeed to prove the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice of opposite parties 1 to 4 in this case.  When we consider the evidence before us, we can very well come to a conclusion to the effect that all the opposite parties are also jointly and severally liable for all the damages caused to the complainant.  On the basis of the above finding, Point No. 1 to 3 found in favour of the complainant.

          In the result, we pass the following:

1. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are directed to pay the cost of the Solar System of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakh Fifty Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of this order till its realization.

2.  Opposite parties 1 to 4 are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of this order till its realization.

3. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are also directed to pay a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of this order till its realization.

       Declared in the Open Forum on this the 29^th day of January, 2016.                   

                                                                               (Sd/-)

                                                                P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                              (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I)              :   (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)                 :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  Mammen Pappy Adeneth

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1 :  Legal notice dated 26.05.2014 sent by the complainant’s counsel

        to the 4^th opposite party. 

A2 : postal receipt. 

A3 : Instruction manual, Warranty card and Installation certificates

A4 :  Electricity bills (4 in Nos.) 

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                         (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Mammen Pappy Adeneth, Adeneth, Vettipuram,

                   Pathanamthitta P.O., Pathanamthitta Dist,

                   PIN - 689 646.

              (2) Kunwer Sachdev, Managing Director, Su – Kam Power Systems 

                   Ltd., Corporate Office, Plot No. 54, Udyog Vihar,

         Phase VI, Sector – 37, Gurgaon – 122001, Haryana, India.

              (3) Service Manager, Su – Kam Power Systems Ltd.,

         Door No – 29/1716, Mattammal House, Thykoodam, Vyttila, 

         Cochin, Kerala – 682 017.

4. Service Manager, Su – Kam Power Systems Ltd., 29/688,

Puthen Modom, Near Hotel Nyle Plaza, Sahakarana Road,

Vyttila, Cochin – 682 019.

(5) Rajesh Madhavan, Managing Director,

     M/s. Electro Business Corporation, Thamarasseril Buildings,

Mamukku, Ranni Taluk, Pathanamthitta District.

6.  The Stock File.