IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 358/09 DATED 13.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant B.B. Vanaja D/o Beemaiah, R/at No.402, Revenue Layout, Opp. KHB Colony, Nimishamba Nagar, Mysore-23.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. Prasanna Murthy Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. M/s Anu Solar Power Pvt. Ltd., Head Office: No.248, 3rd cross, 8th Main, 3rd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-58.<br /> 2. M/s Anu Solar Power Pvt. Ltd., Branch Office: No.375, “Krishna Leela”, 9th Main, 13th cross, ‘B’ Block, J.P. Nagar, Mysore.<br /> ( By Sri.P.K.R, for O.P.1, Advocate, O.P.2 is exparte)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 19.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 09.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 13.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 Month 4 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act the complainant has filed the complaint against the opposite parties seeking a direction to take back the Solar System and refund the cost of Rs.11,139/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and further damages of Rs.10,000/- and cost of the proceedings.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that the first opposite party, is the company manufacturing Solar System and the second opposite party, is the representative of the first opposite party. On 14.05.2009, the complainant booked Solar Geaser with a capacity of 1 No.100 LPD.ETC paying Rs.500/-. The cost was Rs.13,416/-. As per the order, the technician installed the system on 18.05.2009 and the complainant paid the price of Rs.11,139/- deducting subsidy amount. From the date of installation, the system was not functioning properly, due to manufacturing defects. The complainant did not receive hot water. Immediately the complainant complained to the opposite parties on 21.05.2009, 23.05.2009, 10.06.2009 and 13.06.2009. Technician from the second opposite party worked on the system and noticed Heating Retaining Tank was to be replaced. Also it was told by the technician that, after replacing the said part, if the system does not function, entire system will have to be replaced. The opposite parties have not complained with the defects in the system. When the complainant contacted the opposite parties, the employee misbehaved with the complainant. The complainant issued notice on 26.06.2006 to replace the system or refund the amount. On the same day itself, in the evening technician of the opposite party came and replaced Heating Retaining Tank. At that time, it was informed that there was cloudy wheather and mansoon and after the said season complainant will get sufficient hot water. The complainant believed the same. However, the opposite parties sent reply dated 02.07.2009, stating that the system has been replaced. It is misleading reply. Entire system has not been replaced, but only the tank. Further, it is alleged that after rainy season, the complainant even in the month of August did not get hot water more than ten fifteen liters. When the complainant called upon the opposite parties, even did not receive the call. The complainant personally approached the second opposite party who assured that they will come and set right the problem. But the opposite parties have not turned up. The second legal notice on17.08.2009 was sent to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties neither replied nor refunded the amount. The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice in installing poor quality solar system. The attitude of the opposite parties, demonstrates deficiency in service. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The first opposite party in the version has denied that there is manufacturing defect in the system. It is contend that, on receipt of the complaint of the complainant, technician was sent to set right the system and the complainant was satisfied by the action taken. Even on receipt of the legal notice technician was sent who replaced Heating Retaining Tank. Besides two more services were rendered. It is contended that, the complainant herself in the complaint has admitted that, 10-15 Ltrs. hot water she got instead of 100 Ltrs. If there was any manufacturing defects even 10-15 Ltrs. Hot water could not have come. It indicates that, there is no manufacturing defect. It is contended that, it might have caused due to electric problem or usage of hard water. In the owner’s manual and service book particulars of the warranty are stated regarding use of hard water above 200 PPM is not applicable. Also it is stated that, at no point of time complainant made any complaint against the first opposite party. Also it is contended that, the warranty is subjected jurisdiction of Bangalore. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> 4. The second opposite party in spite of due service of notice, has remained exparte.<br /> 5. To prove the facts alleging in the complaint, the complainant filed her affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, the Executive Director of the first opposite party has filed his affidavit. We have heard the arguments of the learned advocate for the complainant. For the first opposite party written arguments are filed. We have perused the entire material on record.<br /> <br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that she is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> REASONS<br /> 8. Point no. 1:- Without repeating the contentions of the parties with reference to the complaint and version, according the complainant Solar Water Heating System with a capacity of 100 Ltrs, has been installed by the opposite parties and initially she did not get hot water and hence, she complained to the customer care centre. Later Heating Retaining Tank was replaced. In spite of it, the complainant did not get hot water to the extent of the capacity. She got only 10-15 Ltrs. Of low hot water.<br /> <br /> 9. Considering the version and the facts stated in the affidavit of the first opposite party, it is contended that it may be due to electric problem or usage of hard water. Consequently one fact is clear that, the complainant is not getting hot water to the extent of the capacity and as per the warranty. The contention that the problem may be due to electric, appears to be irrelevant. For Solar Water Heating System electricity is nothing to do. Then as regards hard water, there is no cogent evidence that the water used by the complainant it is above 200 PPM. On the other hand, for the complainant is submitted that, the neighbors are using some water for their Solar Water Heating System and that they are getting hot water. Considering this fact, the contention of the opposite party that, the problem may be due to hard water, has not been established.<br /> <br /> 10. The opposite party further contend that, the complainant admitted in the complaint that, she was getting 10-15 Ltrs. hot water. Firstly, that does not mean that, the complainant is getting hot water the full capacity of 100 Ltrs. Further more it is stated by the complainant that, she got low hot water. The fact that the complainant got little hot water does not mean that the entire system is perfectly O.K.<br /> <br /> 11. It is relevant to note that, on 18.05.2009, system was installed and because the complainant did not get hot water, on the third day itself, she complained to the opposite parties. Thereafter, again on second day she complained. Then after about 18 days. So also again thereafter third day. If really, the system was working properly, the complainant in the normal course could not have complained about the system that she was not getting hot water within 3 days from the date of installation. Also it is relevant to note that, after the complainant sent notice on 26.06.2009 to the opposite parties, on the same day evening Heating Retaining Tank was replaced. It was in the month of June. The complainant claims that, the representatives of the opposite parties told that, it was mansoon season and cloudy wheather and after the rainy season is over she will get sufficient hot water. She submits that believing the words of the representative of the opposite party, she kept quite and even after rainy season, she did not get hot water and as such, she again complained to opposite parties but they did not turn up and ultimately she had to issued legal notice second time. Considering all these facts, we are of the opinion that, the complainant has proved defect in the system supplied and installed by the opposite parties, let it be manufacturing defect or any other defect.<br /> 12. Learned advocate for the first opposite party argued that, after the technician set right the system, the complainant satisfied which could be seen from the service case sheet. In this regard, rightly it is pointed out for the complainant that, after attending the work signature of the complainant was taken. There cannot be any dispute that, at least few hours one has to wait to get hot water. When that is so, signing the service case sheet by the complainant as satisfactory, does not mean that the system was functioning properly providing hot water. More over even from the case sheet produced by the opposite party as well as by the complainant, in several sheets there is no marking regarding satisfactory, good etc.,. In service card sheet marking column are blank. Further more in two service call sheets there is some mark as satisfactory but it is not know who and when it was done. Under the circumstances the argument of learned advocate that, the complainant satisfied with the service, cannot be appreciated.<br /> <br /> 13. It is further contended by the opposite parties that at no point of time the complainant complained with the first opposite party regarding the problem of the system. At serial No.16 on page 49 of the documents for the complainant, copy of the notice that was sent by the complainant to both the opposite parties, is produced. At serial No.17 reply that was sent by the opposite party to the advocate of the complainant is produced. In this reply, it is informed that, the system has been replaced. Hence, firstly, the contention of the first opposite party that, the complainant did not complain about the problem in the system, is false. In fact there is reply and also it is stated that, system was replaced. In this regard, it is relevant to note that, in fact the entire system was not been replaced but only a part of the system. Hence, as rightly contended by the complainant, misleading reply was sent to make believe that entire system was replaced. More over, the complainant has produced postal acknowledgement. Hence, the contention of the first opposite party that, the complainant at no point of time made complaint to the first opposite party, is false.<br /> <br /> 14. As regards the contention that warranty and claim is subject to Bangalore jurisdiction, cannot be appreciated, considering the entire fact particularly, the system has been installed within the jurisdiction of this Forum and more over, the second opposite party is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.<br /> <br /> 15. Considering the facts and material on record, in our opinion, the complainant has proved that the Solar Water Heating System installed by the opposite parties is not working as per the warranty and despite repeated complaints, the opposite parties have not rectified the problems and as such, there is deficiency in service on their part. Accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 16. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. Both the opposite parties jointly and severally are hereby directed to repair the Solar Water Heating System in question to the satisfaction of the complainant so as to provide hot water as per the guaranty, within 15 days from the date of the order.<br /> 3. If the complainant does not satisfy with the service then the both the opposite parties jointly and severally shall refund cost of the system amounting to Rs.11,139/-, along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of installation of the system till realization of the entire amount and that amount shall be paid within the month from the date of the order. On payment of said amount, the opposite parties are at liberty to take back the Solar System in question.<br /> 4. Further, both the opposite parties jointly and severally shall pay damages of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards harassment and inconvenience caused and Rs.1,000/- cost of the proceedings.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 13th November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />