Complaint filed on: 11-01-2021
Disposed on: 20-07-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
#201, 202, 1st Floor, Indian Red Cross Building Complex,
Ashoka Road, Tumakuru-572 101.
DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF July, 2022
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc(Agri)., L.L.B,MBA, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER
CC.No.07/2021
Sri. Yerrappa. R.S.
S/o Late Sannalingappa ,Aged about
65 years, R/at Rajavanti village,
Kasaba Hobli,Pavagada taluk, Tumkur district.
………..Complainant
(By Sri.R.K. Radhakrishna, Advocate)
V/s
Opposite parties:-
1. M/S Novus Green Energy
Systems Pvt Ltd, No 100,
Siddhi 1st & 2nd Floor,
P & T Colony, Trimulgherry,
Secunderabad – 560015.
2. M/S KREDL, No 39,
Shanthigruha, Bharath Scouts and
Guides Building, Palace Road,
Gandhinagar, Bangalore – 560001.
3. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Pavagada BESCOM Office,
Pavagada.
4. The Chief General Manager,
National Bank for Agricultture &
Rural Development, Plot No C – 24,
G Block, Badra – Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400051.
5. Scientist C, Government of India,
Ministry of New and Renewable Energy,
Block No 14, CGC Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi – 110003.
(OP No.1 – by Sri J.M. Mutthurayappa, Advocate,
OP No.2 by Smt Pallavi.L.J , Advocate,
(Ops 3 – 5 Exparte)
-:ORDER:-
SRI.KUMARA, N. MEMBER
This complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to direct the Opposite parties 1 and 2, to rectify the defects in the AC / DC Solar water pump system of 5 HP capacity, which was supplied by them under scheme, NABARD vide reference No NB.DOR, GSS / 205, Solar Pump sets / 2016 - 17, and to maintain the system till completion of 5 years as per contract agreement and to award Rs 10,0000-00 towards crops loss and Rs 10,00000-00 towards mental agony, communication expenses, and transportation fee, with interest of 12 % p.a.
2. The OP Nos.1, to 5 are, M/S Novus Green Energy Systems Pvt Ltd, Secunderabad – 560015, M/S KREDL, Bangalore – 560001, Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM Office, Pavagada, The Chief General Manager NABARD, Mumbai 400051 and Scientist C, Government of India, Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, New Delhi – 110003 respectively (The OP No.1, 2,3,4 and 5 hereinafter called as Ops).
3. It is the case of complainant that the OP No 1 supplied one AC / DC Solar water pump system of 5 HP Capacity to the complainant and installed the said Solar water pump system on 16-05-2017 in the complainant field and he was beneficiary under scheme, NABARD vide reference No NB.DOR, GSS / 205, Solar Pump sets / 2016 - 17, accordingly complainant paid Rs 100000-00 to the OP No 2, towards his share, GOK (Government of Karnataka) and MNRE (Ministry of New and Renewable Energy), shares were Rs 204000-00. Rs 166000-00 respectively, which were given as financial assistance / subsidy to the complainant, with total financial outlay of Rs 462000-00. The complainant submit that the OP No 2 was Nodal agency in Karnataka State and the OP No 1 supplied the said Solar water pump system and as per the terms and conditions /warrantee the OP No 1 has to give service and maintain the said system for the period of five years from the date to installed, accordingly said Solar water pump system worked till 21-12-2017 and later problem started. The complainant approached the local representative and called the OP No 1 & 2, over phone many times between 15-02-2018 to 18-09-2018 to rectify the defected Solar water pump system, but no one turned up and finally one mechanic deputed by the OP No1, to do needful, but after the inspection, Mr Prashant of OP No 1 Manager send what sup message that Rs 39000-00 costing towards repair of the defected Solar water pump system and advised the complainant to pay the said amount to rectify the system. The complainant further submits that, it’s the duty of OP No 1 to give service and maintain the said Solar water pump system in good working conditions for the periods of 5 years, because of warrantee, but they are demanding money of Rs 39000-00 from the complainant to rectify the defect of the said system. The complainant issued legal notice dated 13-01-2020 to OP No 1 & 2, but instead of giving service they replied as denied, this act of OP No 1 & 2 resulted in complainant to sustain loss, as crop loss (Coconut garden) due to failure in irrigating with bore well water to the land, which leads to deficiency in service on the part of the OP No 1 & 2, hence this Complaint.
4. After the complaints registered, Notice served to OP No 1 to 5, Sri J.M. Mutthurayappa, and Sri M.V. Charati Advocates and filed power to on behalf of OP No 1 and 2 respectively, and filed their versions, later Smt Pallavi.L J, Advocate filed NOC vakalath for the OP No 2. OP No 3 to 5 Notices served, but remained absent hence placed Ex parte.
5. The OP No 1 and 2 in their versions, admitting the facts, that the complainant was beneficiary under the scheme, sanctioned by the OP No 5, in the order No 42 /25 /2014 – 15 /PVSE dated 29-12-2014. The OP No 5 (MNRE / Government of India) introduced said scheme and the OP No 2, is a Nodal agency of the Government of Karnataka, to facilitate the development non conventional energy sources, prorogate, advertise and do all such acts for development of renewable and non conventional energy in the state, accordingly OP No 2, to implement the said scheme, the OP No 1 awarded contract for supplying, installing, commissioning and five years comprehensive maintenance of AC solar water pumping system of 5 HP capacity (with remote monitoring facility). The OP No 1 supplied one AC / DC Solar water pump system of 5 HP Capacity to the complainant and installed the said system on 16-05-2017 in the complainant farm, which was functioning and in good working conditions, and said system on the same day handed over to the farmer / complainant. The OP No 3 was a technical agency to coordinate and implement said scheme but the OP No 4 has no role. The OP No 1 and 2, further submitted that, the complainant availed one more AC / DC Solar water pump system of 5 HP Capacity under the same scheme, which was installed by Jain irrigation system, Jalagoon, the complainant submitted all documents pertaining in this complaint. Further submitted that, as alleged by the complainant that the complainant approached the OP No 1 and 2 many times to rectify the defected Solar water pump system, during 15-02-2018 to 18-09-2018, was denied as no records found, but on 17-7-2019 the OP No 1 and 2 received the complaint from the complainant regarding the non functioning of the Solar water pump system, which was installed by the OP No 1 and requested to rectify the system, in turn on 31-07-2019 the OP No 1 deputed service engineer to do needful, and service engineer visited complainant field and inspected the said system on the same day, matter informed to the complainant, and submitted the report to the senior officers of the OP No 1 and 2, that, installed VFD ( Variable frequency drive) burnt due to the mishandling which was tampered by the farmer / complainant and violated the terms and conditions of warrantee, hence, rectification chargeable as it is not covered under warrantee. The OP No 1 and 2 denying the all the averments of the complainant and as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No 1 and 2 or negligence ,On the above grounds, the OP No 1 and 2 asked to dismiss the complaint.
6. The complainant, OP No 1 and 2 filed their affidavit evidences and complainant documents got marked Exs-P1 to P11, and later on 08-06-2022 complainant documents marked as Ex P 12 to P 18, and OP No 2 documents marked ad R 11 to R 15.
7. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned complainant counsel and learned counsel representing the OP No 1 and 2 and the points that would arise for determination are as under:
- Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
2) Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?
8. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In the partly affirmative
Point No.2: In the partly affirmative for the below
:REASONS:
Point No.1 to 2:
9. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that, we haven’t tampered or altered the system, which was dis-functional on 21-12-2017 and called the OP No 1 customer care many times and in between 15-02-2018 to 18-09-2018, the complainant repeatedly informed the OP No 1 and 2, to rectify the non functional Solar water pump system which was installed by the OP No 1, but they delayed and not made the said system functional even though, as per the terms and conditions / warrantee, the OP No 1 and 2 responsible for the maintaining of the said system for 5 years from the date of installed, but after lapse of 1 years 6 month from the installation, the said system become non functional, the act of the OP No 1 and 2, caused complainant to suffer and without irrigation the complainant coconut garden sustained loss of Rs 1000000-00 and mental agony, and prayed to allow the complaint.
10. The learned counsel for the OP No 1 argued that, immediately after the complaint received from the complainant, we deputed service engineer to needful, in turn service engineer inspected the said system and reported with photos / evidence, stating that the complainant tampered the Variable frequency drive, resulted in system non functional, the act of the complainant against the terms and conditions / warrantee. In spite of it the OP No 1 is ready to rectify the said system default and made functional without extending warrantee period.
11. The learned counsel for the OP No 2 argued that, the OP No 5 (MNRE / Government of India) introduced said scheme, to introduce the said scheme in Karnataka state the OP No 2/ the nodal agency of the of the Government of Karnataka, the OP No 3 was a technical agency to coordinate and implement said scheme but the OP No 4 has no role. The nonfunctional of the solar water pump system which was installed by the OP No1, due to the complainant act of altered / tampered the Variable frequency drive, hence prayed to dismiss case against OP No 1 to 5.
12. The complainant produced Ex P 1 to P 10, which were irrelevant to this case, EX P 11 was the complainant legal Notice dated 13-01-2020 and postal acknowledgements of notice served to OP No 1 and 2, EX P12 to P 18 documents related to this case.
13. OP 1 and 2 Counsels produced copy of the Scheme, Scheme details, and Complainant details according to scheme, contract details, terms and conditions, commissioned certificate.
14. The Ex P 18, Ex R,3 where in complainant, OP No 1and 2 signed and accepted the terms and conditions, The OP No 1 installed, commissioned the solar water pump system in the complainant field which was in good working conditions and functional, and handed over to the complainant with specific note of physical damage, shifting, modifications, tampering, repair by the farmer / complainant prohibited, if any problem / complaints, reach OP No 1 and 2 and customer care number +91-40=69993245.
15. Copy of the E - mail submitted by OP No 1, which was sent by the service team of OP No 1 on 31-07-2019 to his senior officers, stated as Incident was caused due to mishandling. The warranty is applicable only against manufacturing defects. Hence we regret to inform you that we can’t able to provide the warranty support against defective VFD.
16. EX R1 8 / Annexure 4 document submitted by OP No 1, in page no 5 of para stated as,
b. The SPV panel shall carry a warranty of minimum 25 years.
c. The SPV panel must be warranted for their output known through name plate which should not be less than 90% at the end of 10 years and 80% at the end of 25 years.
d. The motor pump sets and controller shall carry a warranty of minimum 5 years.
e. The Motor Pump sets Distribution Boards or digital meters or switchgear and overall workmanship of the SPV pumping systems including mechanical structures and electrical works must be warranted against any manufacturing or design or installation or performance defects.
f. The warranty will be against breakage, malfunctions, non fulfillment of guaranteed performance and breakdowns due to manufacturing defects or defects that may due to improper operation of electrical or electronic components of the system but do not include physical damages by the end users.
17. A Variable Frequency Drive (VFD) is a type of motor controller that drives an electric motor by varying the frequency and voltage supplied to the electric motor. Other names for a VFD are variable speed drive, adjustable speed drive, adjustable frequency drive, AC drive, micro drive, and inverter. Frequency (or hertz) is directly related to the motor’s speed (RPMs). In other words, the faster the frequency, the faster the RPMs go. If an application does not require an electric motor to run at full speed, the VFD can be used to ramp down the frequency and voltage to meet the requirements of the electric motor’s load. As the application’s motor speed requirements change, the VFD can simply turn up or down the motor speed to meet the speed requirement.( https://vfds.com/blog/what-is-a-vfd/).
Common Causes of VFD Failure
- Keeping Your VFD Maintained. The first thing you should know when purchasing a VFD is to keep it clean, cool, and dry.
- Poor Environment.
- Loose Connections.
- Wrong Equipment.
- Overuse.
- High Bus Fault.
- Over current Fault.
- High Starting-Load Current.
18. Comprehensive Maintenance refers to preventive maintenance of equipment as per schedule which includes breakdown equipment spare parts replacement, engineering and labor charges.
19. in this case the service team of OP No 1 opinioned that defective VFD caused due to the mishandling by the complainant. The OP No.1 not produced the believable evidence of complainant mishandled, even though many reasons to cause VFD failures (Para 17). As per the terms and conditions agreed between OP Nos.1 and 2, (the para 16, b and c) warranty of 25 years in case of VFD, but in this case it was defective after one year six months after installed. When complainant informed the malfunctions of Solar water pump system which was installed by the OP No 1, and warranty covered for that in the agreement (Para 16, f),it was the duty of OP No 1 to give services to the farmers in this scheme as the OP No1, entered agreement of Comprehensive Maintenance with OP No 2 in the scheme but, the OP No 1 failed to give service to the complainant as per the terms and conditions and complainant suffered and compelled the complainant to approach this commission. The complainant not produced believable evidence of crop/garden loss of Rs 10,00,000-00 and mental agony, which is due to non-function of said Solar Water Pump System, and Ex.P1 to P10 evidenced by the complainant obtained one more Solar Water Pump System in this Scheme which is functional. In the above discussions, it’s appropriate to award compensation of Rs 10,000-00 and litigation cost of Rs 10,000-00 , accordingly we proceed to pass the following;
:ORDER:
The complaint is partly allowed by directing the OP No.1 to rectify the defects to function the AC/DC solar water pump system of 5 HP Capacity with the existing warrantee, and further directed the OP No.1 to pay compensation of Rs 10,000-00 and litigation cost of Rs 10,000-00 to the complainant.
The complaint against OP Nos.2 to 5 is dismissed.
The OP No.1 is further directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of this order, failing which, Rs.100/- per day shall be paid to the complainant till compliance of the order.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.
