Orissa

Jajapur

CC/2/2015

Monaj Kumar Dhal - Complainant(s)

Versus

MLITE SOLAR - Opp.Party(s)

29 May 2015

ORDER

                    IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:   1.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Presiding Member,

                                                                         2.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                           

                                       Dated the 29th day of May,2015.

                                       C.C.Case No.02 of 2015

Manoj Kumar Dhal S/O Pramod kumar Dhal

At. Kimbiripal, P.O. Udaypour, Via. Sujanpur

Dist.Jajpur.                                                                                     …… ……....Complainant .                                                                       .

                   (Versus)

1.M LITE SOLAR-Prop-Sunil Kumar Mangaraj,At..Samantarapur,Barunai Industrial

    Estate Road,Khorda,Bhubaneswar.

2. M/S MAHARISHI SOLAR  TECHNOLOGY PVT.LTD,A-14,Mohan Co-operative

     Industrial Estate,Mathura Road,New Delhi-110044

3. DIGAMBAR BEHERA,At.Baliapal,P.O.Bainsiria Dist.Jajpur.

4. INDIAN BANK, BALIAPAL,At.Baliapal,P.O.Bainsiria, Dist.Jajpur.

5. NABARD Regional Office,Ankur 2/1,Nayapalli,Civic Center,

   Post Box-179,Bhubaneswar.                                                      …………………..Opp.Parties.

For the Complainant:                Self.

For the Opp.Parties No.1         Sri J.M. Pattnaik, P.K.Rout, A.P.Mishra, R.K. Pattnaik,

                                Sri.C.Panigrahi, M.K.Samal,M.K.Mallick, Miss.I.Mohanty, Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties No.2         Sri Pathsarathy Suttar ,Authorized Representative.

For the Opp.Parties No.3         Self.

For the Opp.Parties No. 4        Sri G.C.Panda, Miss.B.R.Rout,Advocates.

For the Opp.Parties No.5         None.                                           

                                                                                               Date of order:   29.05. 2015.

SHRI  PITABAS  MOHANTY, PRESIDING  MEMBER .

                        The petitioner has filed this  dispute  alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. due to supplying a defective solar inverter.

                        The facts relevant for the present dispute shortly as per complaint petition are that the petitioner purchased a solar inverter under JNNSM scheme of NABARD circular No.102/DOR-GSS/34/2014 from M-LITE SOLAR  which is the authorized agency of M/S Maharishi Solar Technology Pvt. Delhi through Indian Bank Baliapal with the help of Digambar Behera  the company  agent on  24.03.2014  at the  cost  of Rs.56,700/- . For purchasing the above inverter the petitioner has availed a loan from the Indian Bank (O.P no.4) by paying Rs.11,400/- towards down payment and a fixed deposit bond  amounting to Rs.50,000/- as mortgage  as against 40% subsidy and 5 years warranty of the inverter. It is alleged by the petitioner that after 15th days  of installation the inverter is not working then the company sent their service man and replace the Inverter . But from dt.08.08.2014 the Inverter not working properly and  many types of problem created. Accordingly the petitioner lodged written objection to the company and after receipt of the objection the company intimated him to took the inverter to their office. It is further alleged by the petitioner that though at the time of supplying the Inverter the company has not given the warranty card or any documents to the petitioner on the other hand assured to give free home service  for 5 years.  But at present as per the assurance the company is not taking any steps to provide any service for the alleged Inverter for which the petitioner has suffered a lot. As such finding no other way the petitioner has filed this dispute with the prayer to direct the company (M-LITE SOLAR) to provide service for the alleged Inverter and issue warranty card as well as a direction to the Bank to release subsidy and award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony.

                        In the present dispute there are 5 numbers of O.Ps. out of which only O.P no.1,2,3  and 4 after appearance have filed the written versions and O.P. no.5 has been set-expartee vide order dt.09.04.2015. 

                        The O.P no.1 has filed the written version denying the allegation of the petitioner . In the written version the O.P no.1 has taken the following defence:

1. Admittedly the O.P no.1 is the authorized dealer of the alleged Inverter.
2. The alleged Inverter has been installed through Bank under subsidized scheme. As such the Bank is the original customer  of O.P no.1 and any grievance for the Inverter should be through the Bank. Similarly as per allegation of the petitioner after receipt of the complaint this O.Pno.1 has disputed service man who has repaired this Inverter but from 08.08.2014 the Inverter working but not properly  working as admitted by the petitioner.
3. Further it is stated by O.P no.1that  according to petitioner the company has not given any warranty card or any documents for the system . As such in absence of any warranty the consumer dispute is not maintainable.
4. In addition to it the present dispute is also not maintainable in this Fora since it has been informed in writing to the petitioner that any dispute  to this is within territorial

       jurisdiction of Khurda. Accordingly the dispute is liable to be dismissed for want  of territorial jurisdiction.

5.At present the O.P no.1 is ready to repair the Inverter in case the same is brought to the work shop of O.P no.1.

                        Owing to the above grounds the dispute is liable to be dismissed both on territorial grounds and on merit.

                        The O.P no.2 also filed the written version denying the allegation of the petitioner taking the  main ground that the allege Inverter neither has been purchased from O.P. no.2 nor O.P no.2 is the proper party for the alleged grievance of the petitioner.

                        The O.P no.3 has filed the written version supporting the grievance of the petitioner. The O.P.no.3 has clearly stated in the written version dt.05.02.2015 that the company has cheated all the customers in supplying defective inverter. Further the O.P.no.3 also admits that one damaged Inverter has been supplied at Baliapal through Indian Bank, Baliapal. In addition to it the O.P.no.3 also admits that the O.P.no.1 is not given the Warranty Card and documents to the customer of Inverter.

                        Similarly the O.P no.4 has filed the written version where in the O.P no.4 has taken the following defence:-

a. The petitioner is not a consumer a. The petitioner is not a consumer of O.P no.4 since the petitioner is a beneficiary under Govt. scheme . Besides this NABARD is the proper Authority to sanction the subsidy.

b. The Bank has disbursed the loan to the petitioner.

C. As regards subsidy the Bank has intimated to the  Regional / Zonal office to claim subsidy  and the Bank also has intimated to AGM NABARD on 06.10.2014 and 07.10.2014 to release subsidy in favour of the petitioner but till date the subsidy amount has not yet been received by the Bank . As such there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P no.4 for which the claim shall be disallowed with cost.

                        After hearing and perusal  of the record and documents of both the parties in details we are inclined to frame the following issues to come to our conclusion.

Issue No.1

                        Whether the petitioner is a consumer ?

Issue No.2     Whether this Fora gets jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute so far as territorial jurisdiction is concerned ?

Issue No.3

                        Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ?

Answer to issue No.1

                        Admittedly the petitioner has availed a loan from the O.P no.4 who has sanctioned the loan for purchasing the Inverter from O.P no.1. For availing such loan the petitioner is paying interest. As such the petitioner is not only the consumer of O.P. no.4 but also the consumer of O.P no.1 as per section 2(d) 1 of C.P. Act 1986 since the O.P. no.1 has received the cost of alleged Inverter as per observation of Hon’ble state Commission Keral reported in 2003(10) CPR-596 supported with Hon’ble Supreme Court at page-598(C 1995) 2 SCC-150-Sc)

Answer to issue No.2

                        It is stated by O.P.no.1 that as it has been intimated to the petitioner in writing that any dispute to this effect is within the territorial jurisdiction Khurda ,this Fora gets no  jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute . As against such defence we are in the considered view that :

1. Admittedly the O.P no.1 has sold the alleged Inverter through O.P no. 3 and 4 which indicates that the O.P no.1 has carried his business through O.P no.3 and 4 which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Fora. As such this Fora gets jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute as per section 11(2) a & b of C.P.Act-1986.
2. In addition to it owing to the facts and circumstances of the present dispute as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2001(2) CPR-108-SC the jurisdiction is a technical point as per observation of Hon’ble national Commission reported in 2009(2) CPR-91-NC ,and this For a is not bound by technically as per observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 11(2006)CPJ-178-NC- on the ground larger interest is to be protected.

Answer to issue No.3

                        This is the vital issue where we have to verify whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

                        After perusal of the written version of O.P no.1 it is not dispute that the O.P no.1 has sold the alleged Inverter to the petitioner through O.P no. 3 and 4. As such we are constrained to hold that it is not only the liability but also the mandatory duty of O.P no.1 to see that the alleged Inverter is working properly.

                        As regards supplying of warranty card ,  the O.P no.1 has not stated in his written version whether he has issued the warranty card of alleged Inverter to the petitioner or not. but simply has taken the stand that in absence of warranty card  the consumer dispute is not maintainable.

                        The above defence of O.P no.1 clearly go to establish that not only there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P no.1 but also the O.P no.1 is carrying unfair trade practice for which the blame is to be placed at the door of O.P no.1 only.

                        As regard the liability of O.P no.4 though there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P no.4 but we advice O.P no.4 to take further steps for release of subsidy in favour of the petitioner.

O R D E R

                        In the result the dispute is allowed only against O.P no.1 and dismissed against O.P no.2,3 and 4. The O.P no.1 is directed to repair the Inverter at the door of the petitioner within 7 days after receipt of this order , failing which the O.P no.1 shall be liable to refund the cost of Inverter with 12% interest from the date of filing the present dispute till its realization . The O.P no.1 is also further directed to issue warranty card  and documents of alleged Inverter to the petitioner . As regards compensation we allow Rs.15,000/-( Fifteen thousand ) which will be paid by O.P no.1 to the petitioner within one month after receipt of this order . This order has been passed as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1993(3) CPR-7-SC( Lucknow Dev.Authority Vrs.M.K.Gupta) .  No cost.

                        Send the copy of this order to DGM/ Zonal Manager, Zonal office  Indian Bank, Bhubaneswar and A.G.M, Nabard Regional Office, Bhubaneswar  for kind information and necessary action.                                

      This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 29th day of May ,2015. under my hand and seal of the Forum.

                                                                                                   

(Miss Smita Ray)                                                                 (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                         

  Lady Member.                                                                        Presiding    Member.                                                                      

                                                                             Typed to my dictation & corrected by me                                                                                     

                                                                                       

                                                                                             (Shri Pitabas Mohanty)                                                          

       .                                                                                        Presiding    Member.