BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.286 of 2014

Date of Instt. 20.08.2014

Date of Decision :08.06.2015

1. Gram Panchayat, Village Dhandhor, Tehsil& District Jalandhar (Pb.), through its Sarpach Amin Chand Son of Karam Chand R/o Village Dhandhor, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

2. Sarpanch Pargat Singh son of Fauja Singh R/o Village Dhandhor, Tehsil & District Jalandhar.

..........Complainants Versus

M/s Singhal Traders, Main Road, Adampur Doaba District Jalandhar through its Partners/Proprietor.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Gaurav Aggarwal Adv., counsel for complainants.

Sh.Sarabjit Singh Adv., counsel for opposite party.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainants have filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite party on the averments that the present complaint is being filed by the Gram Panchayat of Village Dhandhor, Tehsil & District Jalandhar through its Sarpanch Amin Chand who is fully conversant with the facts of the present case. Amin Chand, Sarpanch is duly authorized by the Gram Panchayat to file the present complaint against the opposite party vide resolution passed by its members on 10.7.2014. The complainant purchased 25 numbers solar street lights alongwith batteries @ Rs.12,500/- each, total amounting to Rs.3,12,500/- vide bill dated 18.7.2013 from opposite party. The above said solar lights are under warranty period of two years. As per the contract entered into between the parties, the opposite party was to install batteries of 70 Amps, but the opposite party fraudulently installed the batteries of 35 Amps without the knowledge and consent of the complainant, which resulted into heavy financial loss to the complainant. Now the above said lights are not working properly as the batteries installed by the opposite party are not as per the specification required and the same have stopped functioning. Complainant requested the opposite party numbers of times to replace the above said batteries with 70 Amps batteries as the same are under warranty period but the opposite party never paid any heed to the request made by the complainant and rather adopted delaying methods on one pretext or the other. The said solar street lights are still under warranty and the opposite party is duty bound to replace the same with new one. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to replace the solar street lights with batteries with new one of desired specifications or in the alternative to refund its cost i.e Rs.3,12,500/-. They have also demanded compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed a written reply pleading that the complaint filed by Gram Panchayat, Dhandor is liable to be dismissed, as there is no contract and no transaction took place between Gram Panchayat, Dhandor and the opposite party. The solar street lights were never purchased by Gram Panchayat Village Dhandor. The solar street lights were taken by Sarpanch Pargat Singh, not by Gram Panchayat. The complainant is not consumer, as the Gram Panchayat never purchased the solar street lights, so there is no contract of any service between the opposite party and the complainant. The solar street lights given by the opposite party to Pargat Singh are as per BID specification for solar street lights lighting system, the battery mentioned therein in section 2(b) of technical specification for LED based SSLS is 12V-40AH. The BID specification is attached. MNRE approved solar LED street light also provide the battery 12V-40AH. Before giving, it was conveyed to Pargat Singh regarding 12V battery 40 AMP. NABARD circular also supports the contention of the opposite party, wherein also, the battery of 12V-40AH is mentioned. The copy of the NABARD circular is attached. In sunray pamphlet the solar street light battery mentioned is 12V-38AH. The opposite party supplied the battery to Pargat Singh as per the specifications mentioned above. Meaning thereby that the opposite party did not commit any wrong. Rather before taking the solar street lights from opposite party by Pargat Singh it was conveyed and explained that the battery shall be 12V-40AMP. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score also. It is alleged by the complainant that Pargat Singh collected the amount on behalf of Panchayat as donations from peoples of the village residing abroad for development and upliftment of the village. Meaning thereby, the persons who allegedly gave the donations are the necessary parties. It denied other material averments of the complainants.

3. This complaint was originally filed by Gram Panchayat and Sarpanch Pargat Singh was impleaded later on.

4. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite party has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and evidence of opposite party closed by order.

6. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties and further gone through the written arguments submitted on behalf of opposite party.

7. According to the opposite party, Gram Panchayat never purchased the solar street lights and same were purchased by Sarpanch Pargat Singh and as such Gram Panchayat has no locus-standi to file the present complaint and it is not consumer of the opposite party. This objection of the opposite party no linger survive after impleading of Sarpanch Pargat Singh as complainant No.2. According to the own admission of the opposite party, the solar street lights were purchased by Pargat Singh. So atleast complainant No.2 is consumer of the opposite party. Ex.CA2(also Ex.C6) is bill given by the opposite party on its letter head. So far as the version of the complainants that as per contract, the opposite party was to install the batteries of 70 Amps but installed batteries of 35 Amps is concerned, the same can not be accepted. The solar street lights were purchased on 18.7.2013 and whereas the present complaint was filed on 19.8.2014 i.e after more than one year. In case the batteries were not as per specification then the complainants would not have kept silent for such a long period. Moreover, the complainants have not produced any agreement or other document to show that the opposite party agreed to install the batteries of 70 Amps and not 35 Amps. As per broucher regarding solar street lights the specification for solar LED street light is 12V-40AH dry battery. As per technical specification for LED based solar street light which are on record, the battery is required of 12V-40AH. As per NABAR Circular also the battery is required to be 12V-40AH. So this fact supports the version of the opposite party and disprove the version of the complainants that the opposite party agreed to install the battery of 70 Amps. It may be mentioned here again that the complainants have not produced any writing or agreement in this regard. The complainants have specifically pleaded in para 3 that the above said solar street lights are under warranty of two years but in corresponding para of written reply opposite party has simply pleaded that para 3 of the complaint is wrong. It has no specifically denied that warranty is not two years. In its written reply, even the opposite party has not mentioned any other warranty period. So the version of the complainants is that warranty period was upto two years is liable to be accepted. The grievance of the complainants that lights are not working properly and same have stopped functioning. So within warranty period, the opposite party is duty bound to rectify the defect in the solar street lights installed by it and if the same can not be rectified then to replace it or refund its price.

8. In view of above discussion, the present complaint is partly accepted and opposite party is directed to rectify the defect in the solar street lights in question installed by it within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case the same can not be rectified then to replace it or refund its price to the complainants. The complainants are also awarded Rs.10,000/- on account of compensation and litigation expenses. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

08.06.2015 Member Member President