Date of Filing:09.12.2009<br /> Date of Order: 01.07.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 01ST DAY OF JULY 2010<br /> <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 /> COMPLAINT NO: 2899 OF 2009<br /> <br /> R. Chandrashekar Naidu<br /> S/o. R. Rajagopala Naidu<br /> R/at No. 21/1, 5th ‘B’ Cross<br /> Hanumagiri Layout, Padmanabha Nagar<br /> Bengaluru 560 061 Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1. M/s. Anu Solar Power Pvt. Ltd.<br /> A Private Limited Company having its<br /> Office at No. 248, 3rd Cross, 8th Main<br /> 3rd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area<br /> Bengaluru 560 058<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director<br /> <br /> 2. M/s. Nagarjuna Credits & Capitals Ltd.<br /> having its office at Plot No. 248<br /> 3rd Cross, 8th Main, 3rd Phase<br /> Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru 560 058<br /> Rep. by its Managing Director Opposite Parties<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 for replacing faulty solar water heater with brand new one or to refund the amount with interest and Rs. 20,000/- damages.<br /> The facts of the case are that the complainant has purchased 200 ltrs capacity solar water heating system from opposite party No.1. Opposite party No. 1 installed the solar water heater. Complainant expressed his doubts about the satisfactory working of the system. From the day of installation water heater was not working properly and did not serve the needs of the complainant and family members. Complainant made several calls to first opposite party and informed about the poor working condition of the system and asked them to rectify defect or else to replace with a new one. Officials inspected system but were not able to rectify the defect and contended that there is some manufacturing defect in the system and agreed to replace it with a new product. Opposite party officials never turn up inspite of repeated calls. Legal notice was issued to opposite party demanding to replace the solar water heater with a new one. Opposite party committed deficiency in service and gross negligence. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. The opposite party No. 1 has filed version admitting that complainant has purchased solar water heating system from opposite party under invoice dated 25.06.2009. Solar water heating system was delivered and installed at the complainant’s address in the presence of the complainant. No complaints raised by the complainant. Service technician attended the complaint on 22.07.2009 and after checking the system thoroughly it was informed that there is no defect in the system. Complainant wanted a new copper system instead of ETC system supplied to him. It is informed that if he requires copper system he has to pay the difference amount. Complainant refused to pay the difference amount. Therefore, opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite party No. 2 is a financier. He is not necessary party to the present proceedings.<br /> 4. Affidavit evidences are filed. Complainant has produced documents.<br /> 5. Arguments are heard.<br /> 6. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for replacement of solar water heating system?<br /> 7. It is admitted fact that complainant has purchased 200 LPD Anu ETC solar water heating system from opposite party No. 1 under tax invoice dated 25.06.2009 for Rs. 20,600/-. Tax invoice has been produced by the complainant. The complainant has also produced service call sheet dated 26.06.2009 which goes to show that system delivered and installed. He has produced another call sheet dated 21.07.2009. From this service call sheet it is clear that the complainant has noted in the call sheet system is not working and requested for replacement of copper system. It is very unfortunate that within one month from the date of purchase the system found to be defective and not working properly. The service call sheet produced by the complainant clearly goes to show that the water heating system supplied by the opposite party No. 1 is having manufacturing defect and not working properly. Therefore, the complainant requested for replacement of the system or for the refund of the amount paid by him. The complainant has produced warranty card. As per the warranty the company has to replace the system if it is found defective within the period of 12 months from the date of sale. The system found to be defective and not working properly within one month from the date of installation. Therefore, it is duty and obligation on the part of opposite party to replace the system with a new brand one or else the opposite party No. 1 has to refund Rs. 20,600/- to the complainant. The learned advocate for the opposite party No. 1 submitted during the course of argument that complainant wanted replacement of copper system in place of ETC solar water heating system and that copper system is costly. The complainant has to pay the difference amount and the copper system will be installed. This submission is quite just and reasonable because the system purchased by the complainant for Rs. 20,600/- is ETC Solar System. If he wants copper system naturally he has to pay the difference amount or else the opposite party No. 1 shall have to replace Anu ETC Solar water heating system in the place of the present defective system. The complainant by filing documents and affidavit evidence clearly established deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No. 1. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be allowed. In the result I proceeding to pass the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> 8. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to replace 200 LPD Anu ETC solar water heating system and install the new brand system at the complainant’s residence in the place of existing system or else the opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 20,600/- to the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order.<br /> 9. If the complainant wants copper system in place of ETC solar system he has to pay the difference amount and get installed the copper system. The option is given to the complainant. <br /> 10. The complainant is entitled for Rs. 1,000/- as costs of the present proceedings from the opposite party No. 1.<br /> 11. Complaint against opposite party No. 2 stands dismissed.<br /> 12. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 13. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 01ST DAY OF JULY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> I concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER<br />