Karnataka

Bangalore 4th Additional

CC/15/1339

Mr. Chinnappa K.M, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S Anu Solar Power Private Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. H.B. UdayaKumar & Associates,

16 Mar 2018

ORDER

Complaint filed on: 20.07.2015

                                                      Disposed on: 16.03.2018

 

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

 

 

CC.No.1339/2015

DATED THIS THE 16^th MARCH OF 2018

 

PRESENT

 

 

SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

 

Complainant/s: -                           

Mr.Chinnappa.K.M,

Aged about 69 years,

R/at no.71, 4^th cross,

Gokal Nagar,

Kanakapura Main Road, Bengalruru-82.

 

By Advocates M/s.H.B.Udaykumar & Associates     

 

V/s

Opposite party/s

Respondent/s:-

 

M/s.Anu Solar Power Pvt. ltd., No.248, 3^rd cross,

8^th main, 3^rd phase,

Peenya Industrial Area, Bengaluru-58.

Rep. by Manager

 

By Adv.Sri.K.T.Kushalappa

 

 

 

 

 

 

PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL

 

 

            This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) seeking issuance of direction to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- with interest at 18% and a sum of Rs.7,500/- towards litigation expenses and to pass such other relief deem fit for which the Complainant is entitled to.

 

          2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that, he purchased a Solar Water Heating System 100 LPD (V) Inner Tank (hereinafter referred as solar water heater) from Op for a sum of Rs.14,400/- vide Tax invoice no.401012879 dtd.16.01.04 with warranty. It is the case of the Complainant, after lapse of 5 years from the date of purchase of said solar water heater started leaking, while approaching Op, Complainant was demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- for replacement which was paid by the Complainant. Op cleaned up and repaired the tank and went away. To the surprise, again the tank started leaking for which Complainant had complained to Op. The Complainant further submits that, repairer/service department of Op had come and informed him that the said solar water heater ill not be repairable, hence at the suggestion of Op to change the tank and full solar power for which Op charged a sum of Rs.9,000/- + Rs.4,000/- for replacing the old copper solar from the Complainant. Totally the Op charged a sum of Rs.13,000/- for the new system admittedly purchased on 21.07.14 from the Complainant vide invoice no.11415042250 (it ought to be 1141504248, it may be the typing error). That the new system was not working within the warranty period after complaining, the service personal of Op came and repaired, after lapse of 2 days again the water heater was not working. In this regard since 3 months before issuing the legal notice dtd.08.06.15 the Complainant complained to Op, but the Op did not attend the defects till date. Neither the service nor sale department responded in spite of collecting Rs.13,000/- totally from the Complainant for replacing  a new solar inner tank, which shows that the Op has supplied a defected solar water heating system 100 LPD (V) Inner Tank to the Complainant, which attracts the deficiency of service and liable to refund the charges so collected together with interest and litigation cost to the Complainant. In this context, Complainant issued legal notice dtd.08.06.15 for which Op issued reply dtd.02.07.15 which is also within one year warranty period as admitted in the reply notice. Hence prays to allow the complaint

 

3. On receipt of the notice, Op did appear and filed version denying the contents of the complaint except admitting the purchase of solar 100 LPD (V) inner tank for a sum of Rs.14,000/- on 16.01.04 by the Complainant. Op submits that, it is manufacturing Solar Flat plate collector systems strictly as per BIS specifications and Solar copper panels are supplied with BIS marks. The solar panels are tested at MNRE & BIS approved laboratory of M/s.Madurai Kamaraj University and the same is meeting all standard requirements. The Op further submits that, in the year 2008 after the warranty period of 1 year, the said system started leaking and during the year 2008 the Complainant replaced the tank by paying Rs.4,500/- not Rs.5,000/-. On oral complaint received by the Complainant, the service personnel of Op company visited residence of the Complainant during 2014 inspected the water heating system and given advise stating that, it was not possible to repair the tank and advised to change the tank, because of the usage of hardwater the life of the system reduces. The Op after discussing with the Complainant installed a new water heater system called Tube Solar heater system by collecting the old system for Rs.4,000/- and Complainant choose one year warranty system. The Op collected Rs.9,000/- extra  for the new system after collecting the old system for Rs.4,000/-. The new system was purchased on 21.07.14 through the said invoice at cost of Rs.13,000/- by the Complainant. The new water heating system purchased by the Complainant has 1 year warranty. The Op further submits that, the Complainant did not call the Op for the last 3 months to set right the defects/provide service. As per complaint of the Complainant dtd.15.06.15, when Op company service personnel visited Complainant’s residence on 16.06.15 to provide service to the solar water heater, the Complainant asked the service personnel not to give service to him and he will talk in court and further told the Op service personnel not to come. The Op further submits that, once a product is purchased, there is no provision to return the system. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.

         

          4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and got marked the documents as Ex-A1 to A6. The General Manager of Op filed affidavit evidence and none of the documents been produced. Both filed written arguments. Heard both side.

  

 

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether is there any deficiency of service on the part of Op, if so, whether the Complainant entitled for the relief sought for ?  
2. What order ?

                   

           

 

6.  Our answers to the above points are as under:

 

Point no.1: In the Affirmative  

Point no.2: As per the final order for the following

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point no.1:  It is not in dispute that, the Complainant has purchased new Solar water heating system on replacing the earlier system from Op. That the new system was not working within the warranty period, after complaining, the service personal of Op came and repaired, after lapse of 2 days, again the water heater was not working. In this regard since 3 months before issuing the legal notice dtd.08.06.15, the Complainant complained to Op, but the Op did not attend the defects till date. Per contra, Op submits that, the Complainant did not call the Op for the last 3 months to set right the defects/provide service. As per the complaint of the Complainant dtd.15.06.15, when Op company service personnel visited Complainant’s residence on 16.06.15 to provide service to the said new solar water heating system, the Complainant asked the service personnel not to give service to him and he will talk in court and further told the Op service personnel not to come. To substantiate this fact, except taking contention at para 8 of its version, nothing is placed by Op. It appears that, the said new solar water heating system was within the warranty period. When the said system was within the warranty period, under such circumstances, it is the duty of Op to rectify the mistakes found therein in the light of the following reported decisions:

 

1) III (2016) CPJ 239 (NC) in the case of Prabhat Kumar Sinha & Anr. vs. Nitish Kumar, wherein it is held that:

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(f), 2(1)(g), 21(b) – Goods – computer – defects – extended warranty – rectification not done – apportionment of liability – deficiency of service – District Forum allowed complaint – State Commission dismissed appeal - hence revision – Petitioners being the seller of defective computer were under obligation either to rectify the defects or to replace computer or refund the consideration amount received – so far as liability of manufacturing company is concerned, it is the issue between manufacturing company and dealer for which respondent cannot be made to suffer – impugned order upheld.

 

2) I (2018) CPJ 174 (MP) in the case of Gupta Communication vs. Puran Lal and Anr., wherein it is held that;

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(f), 2(1)(g), 15 -  mobile set – manufacturing defect – mobile stopped functioning and got hanged on several occasions – service centre neither repaired nor gave any mobile – deficiency of service – apportionment of liability – So far as liability of manufacturing company is concerned it is the issue between manufacturing company and dealer for which the Complainant cannot be made to suffer – If mobile sold by appellant did not function properly in period of warranty, appellant being seller of mobile would clearly be under obligation to either repair or replace mobile or to pay back consideration received by him to Complainant – District Forum has appreciated facts and law in just and proper manner.

 

8. In this view of the matter, we come to the conclusion that, there is deficiency of service on the part of Op, as it did not properly attend the grievance of the Complainant. Anyhow, an option is left open to the Op to get rectify the manufacturing defect if any found in the said new solar water heating system by replacing the defective parts without charging any amount. At the time of dictating the order in the open forum, on being questioned, the Complainant submits that, the said new solar water heating system is with him. Accordingly, if the Complainant is directed to surrender the said system before the Op to get it repair at free of cost and bring it to proper working condition, we hope no prejudice will caused to Op. We also made it clear that, if the said system is not properly get it repair, in that event, Op is directed to refund an amount of Rs.9,000/- which was the cost paid by Complainant at the time of purchasing the said new solar water heating system by exchanging the old solar water heating system. The Complainant has not sought for any of the compensation, but sought cost of litigation of Rs.7,500/- which appears to be exorbitant, hence it is scaledown to Rs.1,000/-. Accordingly we answered the point no.1 in the affirmative.

 

9. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:

 

 

 

ORDER

 

          The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby allowed.  

 

          2. Op is directed to get repair the said new Solar water heating system by changing the defective parts at free of cost within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, to return an amount of Rs.9,000/- being the cost paid by the Complainant at the time of purchasing the said new solar water heating system by exchanging the old solar water heating system, with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of purchasing of new solar water heating system till the date of realization upon producing the new system by the Complainant.  

         

3. Op is also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- being the cost of litigation to the Complainant.

 

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

 

         

(Dictated to the Stenographer in the open forum and pronounced on 16^th March 2018).

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT

                                                                        

1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.Chinnappa.K.M. who being the complainant was examined. 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

 

Ex-A1	Warranty card
Ex-A2	Invoice dtd.16.01.04
Ex-A3	Tax invoice dtd.22.09.08
Ex-A4, A4a to A4d	Service call sheets dtd.15.01.04, 04.04.08, 30.08.08, 22.08.08, 19.01.04
Ex-A5, A5a and A5b	Legal notice dtd.08.06.15, reply notice dtd.02.07.15 and postal acknowledgement
Ex-A6	Invoice dtd.21.07.14

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:

 

Sri.George Kutty, who being the General Manager of Op was examined.

 

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s

 

NIL -

 

 

 

 

(ROOPA.N.R)     MEMBER

(S.L.PATIL)  PRESIDENT