D.O.F:01/01/2019
D.O.O:01/01/2020
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.No.1/2019
Dated this, the 01th day of January 2020
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Abdul Rahiman.M.M
S/o Mohammed Kunhi,
Rahmath Manzil, Mangad, Bare Post, Udma (Via)
Kasaragod -671319 : Complainant
(Adv: Rajesh.K)
- Moser Baer Solar Ltd,
No.43B, Okhla Industrial Estate, PhaseIII
New Delhi 110020
- SS Associates
Agna Plaza, Near Traffic Junction,
M.G Road, Kasaragod.671121
3. SS. Associates
Head Office, Near Training School,
Thalassery Road, Kannur NH.66 Kannur :Opposite Parties
4 . District Engineer, ANERT
Railway Station Road
Clock Tower Junction, Thayalangadi Kasaragod 671121
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The facts of the case in brief is as follows:
That the complainant has purchased an MBSL solar Photovoltaic system 1KWP with battery back up on 21/01/2014. The product was manufactured by the Opposite Party No:1 and supplied by their authorized agent Opposite Party No:2. The Opposite Party No: 3 is the head office of the Opposite Party No: 2. Out of the total cost of the system Rs.1, 91,419/- an amount of Rs.92262/- was offered as subsidy by the Opposite Party No: 4. The Opposite Parties made the complainant to believe that the Opposite Party No: 1 is a leading manufacturer of solar Photovoltaic cells and models and undergoes stringent ISO and total quality management principles. On the basis of attractive reproduction and offer of subsidy, the complainant purchased the above system by paying Rs.99157/- . The warranty period of MBSL SPU system with battery backup is 5 year.
The system was performed only for one year and with in that period it was repaired twice. Again when it was defaulted the complainant attempted to contact the Opposite Party No: But in utter surprise it was found that the said establishment was closed. The complainant filed a representation dated 05/12/2017 before the Opposite Party No:4 but in vein. The system has been in non functioning for the last 3 to 4 years. On the due date of expiry of the warranty period, the complainant sent a request to the director of the ANERT and the Opposite Party No: 4, but there was no response.
The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice. Even though the product become non functioning for the last 3 to 4 year there is no offer from the Opposite Parties to repair the same. It caused heavy mental agony and inconvenience to the complainant.
Hence this complaint. The complainant estimates the damaged caused to him to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The complainant prays for a direction to the Opposite Parties to repair the MBSL solar Photovoltaic system 1KWP or to repay the amount of Rs. 99157/- paid as consideration and also compensation Rs. 50000/- to the complainant.
The notice issued to the Opposite Parties No1 to 4 is duly served but they called absent and set exparte. But the Opposite Party No: 4 thereafter filed their written version which was received.
As per the version filed by the Opposite Party No:4 they are the nodal agency of the Central and State Governments for implementation of new and renewable energy programmes and their role is limited to a facilitator only. The invoice is raised by the Opposite Party No: 1 to 3 and not by them. Also the entire amount is collected by the company chosen by the complainant. The time line of the installation of the equipments, payment condition, warranty etc are to be clearly listed in the agreement executed the beneficiary and the company, the Opposite Party No: 1 to 3. The beneficiary complainant was paying the cost of the system after deducting the subsidy from the total cost of the system including installation. Based on the report from the beneficiary complainant regarding the satisfactory working of the system, the technical compliance and recommendation for release of subsidy is processed and paid to the Opposite Parties No: 1 to 3. The complainant is not a consumer of the Opposite Party No: 4. It is the Opposite Party No: 1 the empanelled agency to rectify the complaints and maintains the warranty condition. Hence the complaint is to be settled in between the complainant and the Opposite Party No: 1to 3.
The complainant’s power of attorney Sri Abdullakunhi filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the documents Ext A1 to A3 are marked. The document Ext A1 is the letter dated 23/07/2013 issued by the opposite Party No;2. The Ext A2 is the letter dated 5/12/2017 issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party No: 4. The Ext A3 is the copy of the letter dated 27/11/2018 issued by the complainant to the Opposite Party No: 4 and others.
In this case the issues raised for consideration are
- Whether there is any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.
- If so what is the relief and costs?
For convenience both these issues can be considered together. The definite case of the complainant is that the MBSL solar photovoltaic system 1KWP with battery back up sold and installed by the Opposite Party No: 1 to 3 become defunct after one year of its installation and the complainant suffered mental agony apart from monitory loss. The total price of the above system was Rs. 191419/- out of which Rs.99157/- was paid by the complainant. The Opposite Party No: 4 paid the remaining Rs. 92262 as subsidy. The system was performed only for 1 year and within that period it was repaired twice. Again when it was defunct, the complainant attempted to contact with the Opposite Party No: 2, but it was seen that the said establishment was closed. The system was offered 5 year warranty and within that period it become defunct and the seller left the place closing the shop. This is a clear case of unfair trade practice and deficiency of service. It seen that the Opposite Party No: 4 which is the nodal agency of the Central and State Government is only a facilitator and no role in the unfair trade practice.
In the absence of any rebuttal evidence we hold that there is unfair trade practice and service deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party No: 1 to 3 due to which the complainant suffered mental agony and monetary loss.
Therefore the complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party No: 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to cure the defect of the MBSL solar Photo voltaic system1 KWP with battery backup of the complainant by repairing free of cost or to deposit Rs. 191419/- the entire price amount of the system before the CDRF Kasaragod and to pay the complainant Rs. 50,000/- ( Rupees fifteen thousand only) as compensation for mental agony together with Rs. 3000/- ( Rupees three thousand only) as cost of the litigation. If the Opposite Party No:1 to 3 deposit the amount of Rs.191419/- before the CDRF, an amount of Rs. 99157/- shall be disbursed to the complainant Time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of the judgement.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1. Letter Dt: 23/07/2013
A2. Letter Dt: 05/12/2017
A3. Letter Dt: 27/11/2018
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Senior Superintendent
Ps/
