Kerala

Thiruvananthapuram

CC/17/246

S F BENJAMIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MD,MEGABYTE - Opp.Party(s)

19 May 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

PRESENT

 

                               SRI.P.V.JAYARAJAN         : PRESIDENT

                               SMT.PREETHA.G.NAIR   : MEMBER

                               SRI.VIJU.V.R.                 : MEMBER

CC.NO.246/2017 (Filed on : 28/06/2017)

ORDER DATED : 19/05/2023

COMPLAINANT

S.F.Benjamin

Bobency, LVMRA – 113 A

Varambassery,

Vanchiyoor.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram – 35

(By Adv.Abhijett Lessli)

                                                          VS

OPPOSITE PARTY

Megabyte Technologies,

VJRA-C-17, Jawahar Lane,

Vellayambalam, Sasthamangalam.P.O

Thiruvananthapuram

Rep.by Proprietor/

Managing Director, Ansan.G

(By Adv.Hari S Nair)

ORDER

SRI.VIJU.V.R        :MEMBER

The complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. The complainant was paying huge amount for electricity bill which was eroding his savings, hence the complainant intended to set up a Solar Plant. In the month of March 2013 the opposite party approached the complainant for setting up a Solar Plant in the complainant’s house. The opposite party assured the complainant that by installing a 4 KW plant the electricity expenses of the complainant would be considerably reduced. Believing the opposite party the complainant directed the opposite party to set up the Solar Plant. The complainant paid an amount of Rs 6,50,000/- (Rupees six lakhs fifty thousand only) for installing the Solar Plant. An agreement was made between the complainant and the opposite party. During the first two years itself the complainant had to regularly call the opposite party as the solar plant was not functioning properly. Even though the opposite party had informed that the Solar Plant would generate 16 unit of electricity per day it was not even generating half of the prescribed energy limit. The complainant had enquired with the opposite party as to the inefficiency of the Solar Plant. Opposite party began to make excuses in this regard. Thereafter on 15/3/ 2016 the solar Plant failed completely as it was not even able to generate electricity during power cut. When this was enquired with the opposite party they stated that this was a problem with the battery. Even though there were to 12 batteries most of them were faulty this was the reason for the problem. Even though the complainant made demands to the opposite party to replace the batteries which were covered by a warranty for 5 years from the date of installation the opposite party never responded for many days after the total failure of the Solar Plant. After the total failure of the solar plant in March 2016 the opposite party send a technician for inspecting the batteries and it was found that 6 out of 12 batteries are faulty and had to be replaced with new ones, hence the technician took the faulty batteries along with the warranty card of all the 12 batteries and told the complainant that batteries will be replaced within 5 days and the warranty card would be returned. Even though the complainant contacted the opposite party even after 10 days after taking the faulty batteries there was no response from the side of opposite party. The complainant waited for nearly 6 month for the rectification of the Solar Plant. Left with no other alternative the complainant purchased a diesel generator for Rs 3,05,000/- (Rupees three lakhs and five thousand only). Complainant installed the Solar Plant so as to reduce the electricity bill, but the purchase was in vain since the opposite party delivered a faulty plant. The act of the opposite party has resulted in great mental agony and huge financial loss to the complainant. The act of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice, hence this complaint.

2.       The opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party has averred that the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant after discussions with the opposite party has decided to set up a solar plant of 4 KW capacity to meet his requirements. The setting up of the solar plant was fixed for Rs.6,50,000/- (Rupees six lakh fifty thousand only). Using the best materials available in the market the opposite party installed a solar plant of 4 K W capacity at the premises of the complainant’s house. There was no technical hitches in the system as alleged in the complaint. The opposite party has never informed that the solar plant could generate 16 units of electricity per day. The generation of electricity by any solar plant depends on various environmental factors like duration of day time, the angle of sun rise, the brightness of cloudiness of weather, rain and season. Hence to say that it would generate a specific quantity of electricity per day is practically impossible. The opposite party measured the electricity generated and it had found that the solar system was working properly. This fact was also got convinced by the complainant. Regular service like cleaning and battery water top up were periodically done by the opposite party. The complainant never contacted the opposite party on or around the 15^th march 2016. The opposite party was under the firm belief that the system was functioning properly and was infact astonished to find that a complainant was filed before this commission. The allegation that the opposite party has taken the faulty batteries along with the warranty cards of all the 12 batteries is a cooked up story. Since there is warranty coverage even presently for the batteries the opposite party is willing to replace them if they are found faulty. The purchase of diesel generator was not known to the opposite party. The opposite party has never wriggled out of his responsibility as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party is willing to give proper service and maintenance to the complainant. The plant installed by the opposite party is not a faulty or a defective one. There is no unfair practice from the side of the opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.  

3.Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the side of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

4.  Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as PW1 and has produced 4 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P4. The complainant was cross examined by opposite party. The opposite party has filed proof affidavit and was cross examined by complainant. The complainant & opposite party has filed Argument Note. It is admitted by the opposite party that they have installed solar plant in the premises of complainant. The complainant has alleged that the opposite party has assured that solar plant will generate 16 units of electricity per day, but the plant was not even generating half of the prescribed energy limit, for which he has not produced any cogent evidence to prove the same. Even though the complainant has alleged in his complaint that the opposite party has installed a faulty plant in his premises, he has not produced any expert evidence to prove the same. During cross-examination of the complainant he has deposed that “P1 ൽ  പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്ന സാധനങ്ങൾ തന്നെയാണ് ഉപയോഗിച്ചത്”. So it is admitted by the complainant that the opposite party used the materials mentioned in Ext P1 for the installation of the solar plant. Another allegation raised by the complainant was that the opposite party has taken back all the 12 batteries along with the warranty cards, for which also he has not produced any evidence before this commission. Also the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that he had purchased a diesel generator. So it is not proved by the complainant that there is unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party. But it is deposed by DW1 during his re-examination that “Version ൻറെ copy ആണിത്‌. 8^th para യിൽ battery യുടെ warranty നില നിൽക്കുന്നു എന്നും battery യും അതിൻറെ   warranty paper ഉം തിരികെ ഏൽപ്പിച്ചാൽ മാറ്റി കൊടുക്കാം എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്. പിന്നീട് complainant battery മാറ്റി കിട്ടാൻ ആവശ്യപെട്ടിട്ടില്ല Battery ഉം warranty card ഉം തിരികെ നൽകിയാൽ  company യുടെ ഇടപാടിൽ മാറ്റി കൊടുക്കാൻ തയ്യാറാണ്”. The warranty was only for 5 years ie.the solar plant was installed in the year 2013 & the opposite party has deposed in the year 2019 that he is ready to replace the batteries if the complainant in turn returns all the batteries along with the warranty card to the opposite party

              In the result complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to replace all the batteries free of cost to the complainant, if the complainant in turn returns all the old batteries along with the warranty cards to the opposite party & pay Rs. 2500/- (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs 2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carriers interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realization.

              A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

               Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 19^th day of May 2023.

                                                                                         

                                                                                            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN   : PRESIDENT

                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                              PREETHA .G.NAIR: MEMBER

 

                                                                                                 Sd/-

VIJU.V.R     : MEMBER

 

 

Be/

 

APPENDIX

CC.NO.246/2017

List of witness for the complainant

PW1            - Benjamin.S.F

List of witness for the opposite party

DW1               - Ansan

List of Exhibits for the complainant

Ext.P1         - Agreement contract

Ext.P2         - Receipt (5 Nos)

Ext.P3         - Copy of invoice

Ext.P4         - Copy of warranty card

List of Exhibits for the opposite party – NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

Court Exhibits                                   - NIL

 

                                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                              PRESIDENT