DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 558/2016
Date of Institution : 13.06.2016
Date of Decision : 21.10.2016
Gurpreetpal Singh (Advocate) son of Sh. Harchand Singh, resident of Maana Street, Bhadaur, Tehsil Tapa, District Barnala.
…Complainant
Versus
M/s Dashmesh Solar System, Harindra Nagar, Near Central Barrier, Kotakpura Road, Faridkot-151203, Punjab, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Harpreetpal Singh counsel for complainant.
Opposite party exparte.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President.
2. Sh. Karnail Singh : Member
Ms. Vandna Sidhu : Member
ORDER
(BY SHRI S.K. GOEL, PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Gurpreetpal Singh has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act) against M/s Dashmesh Solar System (hereinafter called as the opposite party).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant purchased one Solar Power Plant consisting of Ten Solar Paneles of 100 Watt each, One PCU (Power Conditioning Unit), One Solar Battery make “Green Urja” of 160 Ah) from the opposite party vide invoice No. RI-73 dated 5.7.2014 for the total amount of Rs. 97,000/- and on 5.7.2014, the advance amount of Rs. 47,000/- was paid to the opposite party and the remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- was paid to the opposite party by the complainant by way of Post dated Cheque No. 096486 dated 18.7.2014 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Branch DAC, Barnala, which was got encashed by the opposite party 18.7.2014. It is further submitted that at the time of purchase of aforesaid Solar Power Plant, the complainant demanded the branded Battery from the opposite party and the opposite party made a representation to the complainant that the aforesaid Battery make “Green Urja” is a branded Solar Battery and the aforesaid Battery would give excellent performance and the opposite party also gave representation that there will be 48 months performance warranty on the said Battery and the price of the said Battery is Rs. 11,000/-. Even the fact of 48 months performance warranty was also mentioned on the invoice No. R1-73 dated 5.7.2014. It is further averred that after purchase of the aforesaid Solar Power Plant, the complainant got installed the same at his residence at Bhadaur, District Barnala. It is further submitted that while purchasing the aforesaid Solar Equipments, it was disclosed by the opposite party that there shall be 25 years performance warranty on the Solar Panels as per manufacturer policy, 2 years performance warranty on the PCU and also there shall be 48 months performance warranty on the said Solar Battery make “Green Urja” of 160 Ah.
3. It is further alleged that after the passage of some time, the aforesaid Battery developed defects and it failed to perform its functions properly with a very poor power back-up. It is further alleged that the complainant many times requested the opposite party to replace the said defective Battery, as the aforesaid defects developed within the warranty period. But the opposite party did not pay any heed to the grievance of the complainant. Rather put the matter on pretext or the other. Then the complainant sent legal notice dated 14.3.2016 by way of registered post. On receipt of the legal notice, the opposite party replaced the said Battery, but again showed the same defects, which arisen previous Battery. Due to which, the complainant many times made a contact with the opposite party by way of telephone, e-mail and also on Whatsapp, but to no effect. It is further alleged that the warranty period is since subsisting and the Battery not properly charged as it not give desired voltage to run the system. It is further submitted that the said Battery starts boiling and due to which it expels the electrolyte solution and the same needs to be top up after every 4/5 days and due to which the Solar Power Plant of the complainant does not give the specified advantage even in full & bright sunny day. It is further alleged that it amounts to deficiency in service and it also caused great mental agony & physical pain and financial loss to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
To refund the amount of Rs. 11,000/- (price of the Battery).
To pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party duly served, but failed to appear and therefore, the opposite party was proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of invoice dated 5.7.2014 Ex.C-2, copy of warranty card Ex.C-3, copy of statement of account Ex.C-4, copy of index f cheque book Ex.C-5, copy of legal notice Ex.C-6, copy of postal receipt Ex.C-7, copy of email Ex.C-8, photographs Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-12, receipt dated 11.8.2016 Ex.C-13, digital CD Ex.C-14, inspection report Ex.C-15, affidavit of Mandeep Singh Ex.C-16 and Ex.C-17 by way of additional evidence & closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for complainant and have gone through the documents.
7. The relief sought by the complainant is to refund the price of the Battery Rs. 11,000/-, as the same was having a manufacturing defect.
8. In order to prove the manufacturing defect, the complainant has placed on file his detailed affidavit Ex.C-1, wherein, he has specifically stated that he purchased the Solar Power Plant on 5.7.2014 for Rs. 97,000/- and at the time of said purchase, he demanded the branded battery. He further stated that however the opposite party told that the battery make “Green Urja” is branded Solar Battery and would give excellent performance and the price of the said battery was Rs. 11,000/-. The complainant further stated in his affidavit that the said battery developed defects and therefore he informed the opposite party for the replacement of the said defective battery and after receiving the legal notice, the opposite party replaced the the said battery, but having the same make “Green Urja” and the opposite party gave assurance. But after few days the aforesaid replaced battery again showed the same defects, which was arisen in the previous battery. He further stated that he contacted the opposite party through telephone, E-mail and also on Whatsapp for misrepresentation and requested to refund the price amount of the battery of Rs. 11,000/-, but in vain. Apart from his affidavit, the complainant has placed on record the inspection report of the battery Ex.C-15 made by expert Mandeep Singh. The said expert has reported that he checked the said battery make “Green Urja” installed at the house of the complainant and after checking the same he found that:-
“this Battery cannot be charged properly and can only be charged upto 25% and this cannot give desired voltage. The voltage of this Battery is only 11.5 Volt and its Specific Gravity is 1.150, whereas the required Specific Gravity of a normal Battery is 1.255 to 1.275 on 100% charged. This Battery starts boiling while process of charging and due to which it expels the electrolyte solution and the same needs to be top-up within a week. This Battery is totally defective and needs to be replaced immediately”
Apart from his report, he also placed on file his affidavit Ex.C-16. Ex.C-17 is the quotation showing the price of the said Battery Rs. 11,000/-.
9. The evidence produced by the complainant is un-rebutted, cogent and reliable. The complainant has successfully proved that the Battery in question is having a manufacturing defect and this defect is beyond repair. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence to the evidence produced by the complainant, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the opposite party is directed to replace the Battery in question with some branded Battery or to refund Rs. 11,000/- the price of the Battery. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 2,100/- as compensation and Rs. 1,100/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the date of the receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the present complaint. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
21st Day of October, 2016.
(S.K. Goel)
President.
(Karnail Singh)
Member.
(Vandna Sidhu)
Member.
