Date of Filing:13.08.2009<br /> Date of Order:11.02.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1928 OF 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> K. Janardhan,<br /> Plot No.25, 4th Block,<br /> II Cross, Behind Krishna <br /> Community Hall,<br /> Ayyappanagar, K.R. Puram,<br /> Bangalore-560036. Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> Managing Director,<br /> Emmvee Solar System Private Limited,<br /> Solar Tower, NO. 55, 6th Main,<br /> 11th Cross, Lakshmaiah Block,<br /> Ganganagar, Bangalore-560024. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking replacement of defective Solar Tank and for compensation of Rs.75,000/- for mental agony etc.,.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased Solar Water Heater from opposite party on 09/09/2004 and same had been installed at complainant’s house Old pet, Palamanner Taluk, Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh. He has registered complaint and opposite party attended the complaint on 11/03/2006. Again in January-2007, the tank started leaking. Complainant reported the matter to the opposite party. On 1st July-2008 the complainant again complained to the opposite party. On 25/07/2008 he handed over the tank to the opposite party and requested for replacement. Complainant received letter from the opposite party advising option of purchasing the existing tank for Rs.10,500/- and the improved model for Rs.18,000/- ignoring the complainant’s request of replacement. On 15/09/2008 the opposite party has come down to Rs.8,000/-. The complainant could not accept the offer and requested the company to replace the defective tank with existing model. Since the opposite party failed to replace the tank the complainant approached this Forum for seeking relief. <br /> 2. The opposite party contested the matter and filed defence version. The main defence spelled out by the opposite party is stated in para-13 of the defence version as under:-<br /> The opposite party hereby submits that the said water heater got damage, due to usage of hard water, which is more the 140ppm. The source of water is Bore well. The system was worked for more than 4 years. It is submitted that the constant hardness, spoils all metal. Stainless steel is a metal, hence the said system got damaged due to usage of hard water. The above said fact clearly shows that there is no deficiency of service from the opposite party. This opposite party is ready to install the tank with new tank for the payment of price of water tank of Rs.10,500/-, but the complainant had fail to pay the amount. Hence this opposite party had given an offer to provide a new tank for Rs.8,000/-, by reducing Rs.2,500/- for which the complainant had refused and filed the above said complaint. This opposite party is ready to give service, but the complainant is not ready to accept the service of the opposite party. Hence question of deficiency of service does not arise. Therefore the opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint. <br /> 3. Respective parties have filed affidavit evidence and documents. Arguments are heard. I have gone through the pleading and the documents. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced before us, the following points arisen for consideration:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in<br /> service on the part of the opposite party? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement<br /> of tank?<br /> REASONS<br /> 5. The complainant admittedly had installed Solar Water Heater to his house on 09/09/2004. For the first time, he has registered his complaint on 20/02/2006. Complainant has produced service report dated 22/07/2008. In this report the complainant has certified that Mr. Arun attended the above system on 22/07/2008 and tendered the complaint and completed the job to my satisfaction and the system is now working satisfactorily. On this service report, the complainant has signed on 22/07/2008 and Service Supervisor has also signed. The complainant being an educated man knowing English has signed on the service report and he has certified that system is working satisfactorily. So, under these circumstances, how can now the complainant complains about the system. The complainant has produced another service form dated 25/07/2008. In this Form he has signed stating that “I hereby agree to pay the actual cost towards repair/replacement/modifications sought by him on the system”. Again this form has been signed by the complainant. As per this Form he has agreed to pay cost of the repair or replacement. When this is the case, the opposite party is right in asking the cost of the tank. As per the opposite party, the price of the tank is Rs.10,500/-. Opposite party has given offer for Rs.8,000/- by reducing Rs.2,500/-. The complainant has signed on the service form agreeing to pay actual cost of replacement. When this is the position, how can the complainant complain deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant himself has produced warranty letter. As per this warranty letter the product is warranted against defects in workmen ship for a period of 10 years for the collector and 5 years for the tank from the date of delivery. So as per this letter only 5 years is the period of warranty for the tank. The system has been installed in the year 2004 and the complainant has filed the complaint before this Forum in the year 2009. Therefore, the warranty period of 5 years for the tank has over and as per the service form signed by the complainant himself on 25/07/2008 he had agreed to pay the actual cost towards the repair/replacement/modification. So, when this is the situation, the complainant cannot now deny to pay the cost of the tank. The complainant has no right in law to ask free replacement of tank by the opposite party company. The opposite party company has come forward to install the tank for Rs.8,000/- by giving concession of Rs.2,500/-in order to maintain good relationship with the customers. Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore the complaint deserves to be dismissed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> rhr. <br />