SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OP for getting an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.87,000/- with interest @12% till realization together with cost of the proceedings.
Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is residing at Korome, a remote area, in Kannur district. The electricity supply in the locality of Korome is irregular or with fluctuations. Sometimes, very low. One staff of OP had informed that the system will met the requirements even if there is rain as the energy received from limited sunlight will be preserved by the connected system such as inverter, battery etc and the required model and allied goods can be supplied from OP No.1. Complainant believed the words of staff accompanied also confirmed the advantage of the said system for providing energy for the devices day and night. Accordingly, OP No.1 provided referred panel, inverter and battery on 10/08/2020 receiving a sum of Rs.51,000/-. The system did not function as assured and it provided energy for 1 to 1 ½ hours and making peep-peep sound later showing dripping. Though the OP No.1 was contacted orally over phone few times, there was no response. Subsequently complainant contacted customer care centre of 2nd OP on 22/08/2020 and a complaint was lodged (Ref.No.2208206082639). On the same day, a reply was received saying, one Mr. Jithu will rectify the defects. Unfortunately, he did not come. Later another communication was received on 25/08/2020 informing that another technician is approaching. Accordingly, another technician inspected the defects and informed that the system installed was not the appropriate system required for complainant and service can be improved by fixing an extra charge. But it was not provided. On 16/09/2020 some staff of the OP NO.1 removed the inverter and battery retaining the solar plate as such saying that it will be rectified on the next day. Unfortunately, that was not done. So far, the system has not been rectified bringing back inverter, batteries etc and additional charger as informed. In order to take solar energy connection, an additional wiring had to be done connecting the light devices such as lights, fan etc. spending a sum of Rs.10,000/-
The materials supplied are of the OP NO.2. The approach of the OPs amounts to cheating, most irresponsible and completely spoiling the requirements of complainant. Complainant is highly aggrieved by the action. He has sustained huge loss and suffering from mental agony, humiliation from other and unable to meet the energy requirements of the house. Therefore a lawyer notice dated 03/11/2020 was sent to the OPs and requested to remove the panel/plates retained in complainant’s house and refund the cost of Rs.51,000/, pay Rs.25,000/- towards losses, mental agony insult suffered and other inconveniences and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the notice within 7days from the receipt of the notice. Though the notices were received by the OPs, no reply has been given. There is gross deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the side of OPs. Hence this complaint.
After receiving notices OPs 1 and 2 filed separate version.
OP No.1 denied the allegations of the complainant raised against them. It is stated that the complainant is residing in the locality where the electricity supply is irregular. So he approached to OP No.1 to purchase solar inverter and selected solar inverter worth Rs.51,000/-. OP No.1 further contained that the solar inverter purchased by the complainant provided energy for 1 hour only. The product was installed at the complainant’s premises by the technicians of OP No.1 and they informed that the device to connect KSEB for charging the battery was not arranged by the complainant. It is submitted that after few days complainant informed that sufficiently back up is not get to the product. It is stated that due to covid 19 pandemic, OP No.1could not send their technicians immediately, Even then, they arranged technicians to inspect the device and found that the battery was low power, So arrangement was made for External charger. But due to adamant stand taken by the complaint OP’s technicians taken back the battery and inverter for checking. According to OP No.1 on checking it was found that the product does not have any defect either manufacturing defect or other. So requested to the complainant to receive the battery and inverter. But he was not ready to receive it. OP No.1 submitted that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their side and prays for the dismissal of the complaint.
OP NO.2 submitted that the complaint should be dismissed for misjoinder of parties and as there is no cause of action to file complaint against answering OP2 nor there is any privity of contract between answering OP NO.2 and the complainant. Thus this complaint should be dismissed against answering OP No.2 on this ground alone. That answering OP Ono.2 does not have any role in the sale transaction between buyer and seller and its role is limited to being the manufacturer of the product and providing warranty services after the sale of the product. That product manufacturer does not manufacture product keeping in mind usage of any particular customer or his particular way of operation. That it is the responsibility of both the product buyer and seller to check the features provided in the product and buy/sale accordingly. That there is no manufacturing defect in complainant’s product. That complainant has neither adduced any evidence or any expert opinion report to support the same. There is no cause of action against answering OP NO.2 as there is neither any manufacturing defect in the product nor any deficiency in-services and thus this complaint is not maintainable against answering OP NO.2 and it deserves to be dismissed.That there is no defect in complainant’s product. That product is working as per its specification. That product purchased by the complainant is a solar inverter and that it has a feature of working on both grid and solar power. That for the product to work optimally it needs to be installed/operated properly an as per the instruction manual provided with the product. Further submitted that in case the battery has got deep discharged due to poor sunshine or excessive use by customer or long power cut, the product resumes charging from grid to support the battery charging. That even thought the product of the complainant was properly installed but it was not connected to mains and the load of all appliances was put on the inverter. That load segregation between main electricity connection and or inverter was not provided for. The inverter is being used as if its regular electricity connection rather than a power backup. That thus battery of complainant’s product was found to be deeply discharged and on asking to connect it to the mains for the same (as per the instructions of installation manual), complainant outright refused. That it’s a matter of general knowledge that in the cloudy days or days with low sunlight, inverter will not get fully charged and the same need to be connected to the mains to get it charged optimally, This is the normal working for any solar operated product. Also one cannot use an inverter as a regular electricity connection and run all the appliance on the inverter. That complainant has time and again refused to connect the inverter with the mains. That answering OP do not provide installation services for its solar inverter and it is the responsibility of the customer to get it properly installed via electrician. That an instruction manual is provided with the solar inverter providing the correct installation guidelines. Further submitted warranty is only limited to repair or replacement of parts only. That there is no manufacturing defect in the product and thus answering OP is not liable to provide either replacement or refund of the complete product. Also this is not the case for silence of contract of sale as to warranty. When product is working fine, as per its specification no question of any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service arises. That OP2 cannot be held responsible for operation of product. Hence prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
At the evidence stage complainant has filed his chief affidavit and documents. He has been examined as Pw1. The documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A7. Pw1 was cross-examined for OP NO.1. On the side of OPs the Director of OP NO.1 Mr. Sherin has filed his chief-affidavit and was examined as Dw1. Ext B1 to B3 were marked. Dw1 has been cross-examined by the complainant. After that the learned counsel of complainant filed written argument note and learned counsel of OP NO.1 made oral argument.
We have perused the record and considered the submissions of the learned counsels of the parties.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had purchased solar system from OP NO.1manufactured by OP NO.2, as per the assurance given by the staff of OP NO.1 that it will met the requirement of providing energy for the function of devices such as light, fan etc used by the complainant. Further informed that that the system will met the requirements even if there is rain as the energy received from limited sunlight will be preserved by the connected system such as inverter battery etc. Hence complainant purchased the solar system from OP No.1 on believing the words of the staff of OP NO.1, Inverter battery on 10/08/2020 after paying a sum of Rs.51,000/- and provide invoice NO.44 for the receipt of the amount. Complainant alleged that the system did not function as assured and it provided energy for 1 to 1 ½ hours and making peep-peep sound later showing dripping. Complainant further alleged that though OP NO.1 was contacted there was no response and on continuous communication, on 16/09/2020 some staff of the OP No1 removed the inverter and battery retaining the solar plate as such and agreed to return after rectified. But that was not done and not returned the inverter batteries etc. Complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
On the other hand OPs contended that the product does not have manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainant. OPs submitted that the complainant failed to prove the manufacturing defect of the product by adducing any expert opinion or other evidence. OPs submitted that the product is working as per its specification.
That product manufacturer does not manufacture product keeping in mind usage of any particular customer or his particular way of operation. That it is the responsibility of both the product buyer and seller to check the features provided in the product and buy/sale accordingly. That there is no manufacturing defect in complainant’s product. That complainant has neither adduced any evidence or any expert opinion to support the same.
So the battery of complainant’s product was found to be deeply discharged and asking it to the grid, for charging, as per the instruction of installation manual, the complainant has refused to connect the inverter with the mains. OPs further submitted that complainant alone has selected the 2nd category product Solar inverter. This system will provide energy for maximum one hour. Further submitted that since there was restriction due to covid +ve pandemic, the technician namely Jithu could not be sent immediately for checking of product after getting information about defect of the product. But OP NO.1 sent another technician and found that there was no complaint to the product.
Complainant has stated that he had asked for installing independent solar system for providing current for considerable period complainant alleged that OP had assured energy 2-3 light/tubes and 2-3 fans for 6-7 hours and the system can generate current independently. I t is not necessary to connect the same to the grid?
The point to be found out is whether the system generate current independently or it is to be connected to the grid.
The user’s manual is produced from the side of both parties (Ext.A7,Ext.B1). On perusal of users manual it can be seen that Solar/Grid preference- If solar is selected, grid charger will be OFF. Grid charger will start only if the low trip happens. Under both modes solar charger will work if solar power is available. Under the once the battery is fully charged during the day the load will be shared by solar and battery, to maximum solar energy utilization and reduction in electricity bill.
Further 12V battery, double panel connected in parallel installation for 12VDC system(for 850XA1100)(100WP 12V or 150wp 12V). Further it is stated that Battery charging:- The inverter charges the battery whenever it is connected to Mains power, and as per the selection of the switches in the back panel. If solar power is available, the unit will charge from solar power too. Allow 10-12 hours for complete recharge of the battery for the 1st time after installation. This will ensure your battery is fully charged and ready to provide backup as expected (important). In page 14 of users manual clearly stated that battery may need 10-12 hours for complete recharge. If power failure is frequent, the battery may not have charged completely.
Hence from the user’s manual it is clear that battery is necessary to connect to the main power for 10-12 hours for complete recharge of the battery for the first time after installation.
So the pleading of complainant that it is not necessary to connect the battery to the grid is not correct. From the evidence of Pw1, it is revealed that the complainant has not made connect the battery with the main switch of KSEB.
OP vehemently contended that the product supplied by them does not have manufacturing defect. With regard to this point, the complainant should have proved that the product is defective as alleged by him. Moreover complainant has deposed that when the OP NO.1, informed toe complainant to take back the battery and inverter, he has not agreed to that. So considering the aforesaid facts, the manufacturing defect of the product should have been proved. Without any such expert opinion, we cannot come to a conclusion that the product of OP No.2, supplied by OP No.1 to complainant is a defective product. Here complainant failed to substantiate his allegation.
On considering the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the complainant failed to prove manufacturing defect of the product. It is evident that the product in dispute was brought by the OPs but the complainant did not take it back. Since the manufacturing defect has not been proved, OP No.2 does not have any liability.
From the aforesaid facts there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. But since the rectified product is in the hands of opposite party.1. OP NO.1 return the rectified product to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Since complainant failed to substantiate deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, there is no order of compensation on the opposite parties.
In the result complaint stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
Exts.
A1- Tax invoice dated 10/08/2020
A2- Copy of lawyer notice dated 03/11/2020
A3- Postal receipt (OP1)
A4- Postal receipt (OP2)
A5- Acknowledgement card
A6- Quotation dated 16/11/2020
Pw1-Complainant
B1- User manual
B2- Govt. Order dated 25/06/2020
B3- Solar P V modular compensation
Dw1-OP1
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
(mnp)
/Forward by order/
Assistant Registrar
