Date of filing : 02-05-2014
Date of order : 08-02-2016
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESS AL FORUM, KAS ARAGOD
CC.86/2014
Dated this, the 8th day of February 2016
PRE S ENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRE SIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEE NA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Mohammed Anwar, S/o. Abdulla.A.K, : Complainant
R/at Guthu road, Adkathabail,Kasaragod.671121
(Adv.K.Shirkanthashetty, Kasaragod.)
1 MOSER BAER SOLAR LTD, 43 B, : Opposite parties
Okhla Industrial Estimate, Phase III, New Delhi.110020
2 S.S. Associates, Anga Plaza, Nr. Traffic Junction,
M.G.Road, Kasaragod. 671 121.
(Exparte)
O R D E R
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL, MEMBER
The gist of the complainant’s case is that opposite party No.1 introduced himself as India’s No.1. PV Solar EPC Company, proven track records for the best performing solar PV installation in world vide and the complainant expected the best of its product performance purchased a unit of 10000 Roof Top Solar Power Plants of one KWP, the unit price of Rs.1,89,524 under the scheme of Channel partner MNRE & ANE R T after deducting subsidy the complainant paid Rs.99,157/- to the opposite parties on 19-06-2013. On the very first day of installation the unit performance is unsatisfactory to the complainant. It works inefficiently and is not benefited to the complainant in its performance and assured by the opposite parties. The opposite party provide 25 years warranty for a speedy self system and 5 years to the battery system. Since the defect occurred from the date of installation the complainant informed and requested for service in the month of July 2013. The sys tem completely failed to perform in the month of September 13 itself. Hence the complainant was constrained to lodge a complaint through G-Mail dated 21-09-2013. The complainant fed up his system installed since the purpose for which the unit is purchased by the complainant is not going to the fulfilled. Hence the complainant sent a registered lawyer notice dt.22-10-2013 to refund the amount of Rs.99,157/- to complainant and to take back the unit. But there was no response to such letter and complainant’s suffering continued as such. Moreover the complainant lost his opportunity of getting subsidy of Rs.92,262/- at present under the scheme of purchase for new systems. Hence the complainant has to pay the entire amount of Rs.1,89,524/- for a new unit. Due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties the complainant had to suffer monetary loss and mental agony which amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
2. Notice of opposite parties were served on them and opposite party No.1 filed version through post. The opposite party No.2 remained absent and the name of the opposite party No.2 were called absent and he was set exparte.
3. Opposite party No.1 contended that the matter mentioned in the complaint was discussed in detail and both of the parties entered into an agreement by replacing the inverter and all the batteries of complainant’s system with a new inverter and also agreed to provide new batteries of the same brand. The first opposite party agreed to replace the inverter and battery before 25th June 2014. On the basis of the above understanding the complainant agreed not to proceed with and to withdraw the above complaint within 3 days of replacement of inverter and battery. Thereafter opposite party never turned up or entered in to box.
4. The complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and Exts A1 to A6 were marked from his s ide. In the mean time even though opposite party represented that the defect is cured and Forum issued notice to complainant for verifying the same it was reported that the defect is not cured as claimed by the opposite parties. Thereafter there was no representation from the opposite parties or they were neither cross examined PW1 nor adduced evidence on their part. The expert commissioner was appointed by the Forum and two reports were filed by the experts were marked as Ext.C1 and C2 respectively. The Forum carefully perused evidence before us and also analyzed documents. Heard the counsel for the complainant in detail with regard to the above case.
5. The PW1’s case is that he had purchased 10000 Roof Top Solar Power Plants from the opposite parties on the basis of the track record for the best performing Solar PV Installation in world vide and by expecting the best of its product performance and after sale service. For the unit price of Rs.1,89,524/- under the scheme of channel partner MNRE and ANERT after deducting subsidy of Rs.99157/- to the opposite parties on 19-06-2013. Ext.A1 retail invoice proves the purchase for an amount of Rs. 1,91,419 and minus subsidy of Rs.92262/-. There is an agreement with complainant for after sale service by Anert. On the very first day of installation the unit performance was unsatisfactory to PW1. It was inefficiently and not benefitted to the complainant as assured by the opposite party. The opposite parties provided 25 years warranty for SPV Cell system and 5 years to the battery. The warranty card is marked as Ext.A5 and on its 31st page condition No.9, at page No.32 specifies the said warranty condition. The unit was installed on 19-6-2013. Since there was serious defect occurred on that day itself the same was informed to opposite parties and requested for service in the month of July 20- 2013. The system failed completely to function in the month of September 2013 itself. At this juncture the complainant was constrained to lodge a complaint through G-mal 21-09-2013. Exts.A6 series are the main correspondence between the complainant’s grievance with the opposite parties. That the anert promise attending problems of complainant’s device within 48 hours and closing of the complaint within working days which in fact not fulfilled in this case. The defect in the unit was continued and resulted in utter dismay and desperation to the complainant and proved that there is no meaning in continuing the use of device any more. The complainant really fed up with the system installed and he is not intending to continue the use of the unit since there is no purpose after installing it. Hence the complainant sent a registered lawyer notice dt.22-9-2013 by demanding refund of Rs.99157/- from both opposite parties. But there was no response for the said letters and the complainant’s sufferings continued unanswered. Thereafter again the complainant sent a lawyer notice to settle the matter amicably also not found any result. Exts.2,3 and 4 are the notices which proves the contention of PW1. The complainant herein lost the subsidy of the Government scheme due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties. And therefore while purchasing a new system the complainant has to pay the entire amount of Rs. 1,89524/-. The negligence on the part of the opposite parties to provide insufficient and inefficient service to the product supplied to complainant amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the consumer Protection Act.1986. The complainant suffered great loss due to the frequent power cut and having no other alternative energy supply. Since he had totally depend upon the unit installed in his house.
6. The opposite party No.1 herein eventhough filed a version by admitting the purchase and agreed to replace the inverter and all battery with a new inverter and 4 new batteries of the same brand within a specified period not complied the promise even after initiating proceedings against them with a due process of law. Opposite party No.2 never bothered to appear before the Forum and defend the case against him. Both opposite parties not adduced contra evidence before us and the contention of the opposite parties remained unchallenged and moreover all the documentary evidence and testimony of PW1 proves the case of the complainant. Apart from all these case the Ext.C1 and C2 are the commission report which clearly indicate about the defects of the inverter beyond any doubt. Hence the complainant is entitled for a relief.
In the result, the complaint is allowed and Opposite parties 1 &2 are jointly and severally directed to refund the cost of renewal energy devices unit Rs.99,157/- with 12% interest per annum to the complainant from the date of complaint. The opposite parties are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss and hardships with a cost of Rs.6000/- to the complainant. On receipt of the amount the complainant is directed to return the energy device to opposite party. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.19-6-13 Photocopy of Invoice
A2. 22-10-2013 Copy of Lawyer notice.
A3& A4 Postal receipts.
A5. Copy of User Manual for Installation, Operation & Maintenance.
A6series copies of G-mail.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
