BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 379/2005 Filed on 17/11/2005 Dated: 30..05..2009 Complainant: K.R.R. Nayar, Mg. Partner, Hotel Seaweed, Seaside Resort, Kovalam, Trivandrum having office at Seaweed, Devika, Sasthamangalam, Trivandrum. (By Adv. K. Krishnakumar)
Opposite parties:
M/s. Tangent Technologies, Vaisakh, A-60, Sreechitra Nagar, Pangode, Thiruvananthapuram-6. M/s. Kraftwork Solar Pvt.Ltd., 29/2862, Adithya, Near Gandhi Square, Poonithura, Kochi.
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 04..07..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 25..05.2009, the Forum on 30..05..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The allegations levelled against the opposite parties are the following: The complainant, who is doing hotel business under the name and style 'Hotel Seaweed' has acquired reputation in the business by providing good services to the customers. Since the electric water heaters installed in his hotel consume heavy electricity, he decided to install solar water heaters in his hotel. Accordingly, the opposite parties commissioned the system on 30/3/2004 and the complainant paid entire amount in full Rs.1,00,000/- on 10/2/2004, Rs.50,000/- on 15/3/2004 and balance Rs. 12,615/- on 31/3/2004 thus amounting to a total payment of Rs.1,62,615/-. The system was offered 60 months guarantee but before the expiry of 2 months from the date of commissioning of the system, the 2 storage tanks supplied by the 1st opposite party started leaking and the matter was temporarily rectified by the 1st opposite party. The complainant made several phone calls and sent reminders to the 1st opposite party requesting them to inspect and rectify the defect, but in vain. After the installation of the solar water heaters, the complainant removed the electric water heaters fitted in the rooms, that due to the defect in the hot water system the complainant could not supply hot water to the occupants of the hotel, there were complaints from the occupants of the hotel and so many cancellations in the occupancy of the room. Thus the complainant suffered huge loss. On 15/4/2005 M/s. Kraftwork Solar Pvt.Ltd., the 1st opposite party had sent a letter to the complainant stating that the solar water heater was damaged due to the bad quality of water in the locality and submitted that the opposite party has installed the solar water heater in the complainant's hotel after considering the atmospheric condition, quality of water and such other natural conditions. Moreover the water used by the complainant is the water supplied by Keala Water Authority. Inspite of repeated requests by the complainant, the opposite party has not rectified the defects in the water heater. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances.
2. Inspite of acceptance of notice from the Forum, the opposite parties neither filed their versions nor turned up to contest the case and hence they were set ex-parte.
3. The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked on his side. The complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.
4. The issues that would arise for consideration are:
Whether the solar water heater commissioned in the complainant's hotel is defective? Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Reliefs and Costs?
5. Points (i) to (iii) : The complainant has pleaded that the solar water heater installed in his hotel 'Hotel Seaweed' Seaside Resort at Kovalam became defective immediately after 2 months of its installation. The system has been installed in a hotel and as per Ext.P1 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, the system is guaranteed for 60 months from date of commissioning. The complainant's allegation is that the solar water heater became defective during the period of guarantee. It is a settled position that even if the equipment was purchased for commercial purpose, the purchaser will definitely be a consumer under Sec 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act in respect of services rendered or to be rendered by the seller for the proper functioning of the equipment during the period of guarantee. Hence there is no doubt with regard to the maintainability of this complaint before this Forum.
6. The payment of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- on 10/2/2004 and Rs.50,000/- on 15/3/2004) is evident from Ext.P2 dated 30/3/2004. Besides the above, there is another entry with regard to paid in full on 31/3/2004, which according to the complainant is that the balance amount has been paid on 31/3/2004. The opposite parties have never challenged the same. Exts.P3 to P6 reveal that the solar water heater is not functioning properly and the opposite parties were informed of the same. Ext.P4 is dated 27/4/2005 which shows that the complaint with regard to the same has arisen within 2 months of its installation and the same has been brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties and Ext.P3 dated 15/4/2005 is yet another document which corroborates the allegation in the complaint with regard to the damage in the water heater and the same were brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties. The complainant alleges that inspite of repeated requests, the defects still persist. As per Ext.P3, the opposite parties have admitted that there is damage in the solar water heater and as per it, the opposite parties have stated that the tanks used in the water heater have been damaged by the bad quality of water in their locality. The complainant has pleaded that the opposite parties have istalled the water heater in the complainant's hotel after considering the atmospheric condition, quality of water and such other natural conditions and moreover the water used by the complainant is the water supplied by Kerala Water Authority. We cannot brush the said pleading aside. The water heater has been installed in a seaside resort and the opposite parties ought to have taken sufficient preventions for the same. The complainant has filed an affidavit to the effect that the opposite parties failed to fulfill the promise made in the guarantee card. The documents produced on behalf of the complainant prove that the solar water heater became defective during guarantee period and the failure of the opposite parties in not attending to the repair and after sales service of the solar water heater in time in spite of the various complaints by the complainant is a gross deficiency in service in the manner and nature of performance on the part of the opposite parties resulting loss to the complainant. It was the responsibility of the opposite parties to rectify the defects within the period of guarantee. The complainant has succeeded in proving that the complaint with regard to the trouble with the solar water heater within the guarantee period, was promptly lodged with the opposite parties. When the opposite parties have not disputed before the Forum that the solar water heater supplied to the complainant was defective, there is no necessity of following the procedure laid down in Sec.13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. The fact that the solar water heater supplied was defective has been proved conclusively by the complainant.
7. In the light of the above discussions, we find that the complainant is entitled to get the solar water heater replaced with a brand new one along with compensation. Obviously, the improper functioning of the solar water heater would have caused loss to the complainant, it is practically impossible to bring out in evidence the actual monetary loss, inconvenience and mental sufferings caused to the complainant. In the light of the materials on record and evidence, we find that an amount of Rs.5,000/- would be reasonable to compensate the same. The complainant is also found entitled for an amount of Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the proceedings.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall replace the existing defective water heater with a new defect free one in good working condition and take back the old, along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) towards costs of the proceedings within one month of receipt of the order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of May, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.
O.P.No.379/2005
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of letter No.TNGT/QTN/147/04 dt. 12/1/2004 issued by opposite party. P2 : Photocopy of bill dated 30/3/2004 issued by opp. Party P3 : Photocopy of letter No.KS/QTN/013/2005 dt. 15/4/2005 issued by opp. Party P4 : Photocopy of letter KRR/SW/Solar dt. 18/4/2005. P5 : Photocopy of letter No.TNGT/QTN/286/05 dt. 10/5/2005 issued by opp. Party P6 : Photocopy of letter dt. 17/5/2005 issued to the opp. Party.
III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
ad. BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No: 379/2005 Filed on 17/11/2005 Dated: 30..05..2009 Complainant: K.R.R. Nayar, Mg. Partner, Hotel Seaweed, Seaside Resort, Kovalam, Trivandrum having office at Seaweed, Devika, Sasthamangalam, Trivandrum. (By Adv. K. Krishnakumar)
Opposite parties:
M/s. Tangent Technologies, Vaisakh, A-60, Sreechitra Nagar, Pangode, Thiruvananthapuram-6. M/s. Kraftwork Solar Pvt.Ltd., 29/2862, Adithya, Near Gandhi Square, Poonithura, Kochi.
This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 04..07..2006, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08..02..2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 25..05.2009, the Forum on 30..05..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:
The allegations levelled against the opposite parties are the following: The complainant, who is doing hotel business under the name and style 'Hotel Seaweed' has acquired reputation in the business by providing good services to the customers. Since the electric water heaters installed in his hotel consume heavy electricity, he decided to install solar water heaters in his hotel. Accordingly, the opposite parties commissioned the system on 30/3/2004 and the complainant paid entire amount in full Rs.1,00,000/- on 10/2/2004, Rs.50,000/- on 15/3/2004 and balance Rs. 12,615/- on 31/3/2004 thus amounting to a total payment of Rs.1,62,615/-. The system was offered 60 months guarantee but before the expiry of 2 months from the date of commissioning of the system, the 2 storage tanks supplied by the 1st opposite party started leaking and the matter was temporarily rectified by the 1st opposite party. The complainant made several phone calls and sent reminders to the 1st opposite party requesting them to inspect and rectify the defect, but in vain. After the installation of the solar water heaters, the complainant removed the electric water heaters fitted in the rooms, that due to the defect in the hot water system the complainant could not supply hot water to the occupants of the hotel, there were complaints from the occupants of the hotel and so many cancellations in the occupancy of the room. Thus the complainant suffered huge loss. On 15/4/2005 M/s. Kraftwork Solar Pvt.Ltd., the 1st opposite party had sent a letter to the complainant stating that the solar water heater was damaged due to the bad quality of water in the locality and submitted that the opposite party has installed the solar water heater in the complainant's hotel after considering the atmospheric condition, quality of water and such other natural conditions. Moreover the water used by the complainant is the water supplied by Keala Water Authority. Inspite of repeated requests by the complainant, the opposite party has not rectified the defects in the water heater. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances.
2. Inspite of acceptance of notice from the Forum, the opposite parties neither filed their versions nor turned up to contest the case and hence they were set ex-parte.
3. The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and Exts. P1 to P6 were marked on his side. The complainant has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.
4. The issues that would arise for consideration are:
Whether the solar water heater commissioned in the complainant's hotel is defective? Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Reliefs and Costs?
5. Points (i) to (iii) : The complainant has pleaded that the solar water heater installed in his hotel 'Hotel Seaweed' Seaside Resort at Kovalam became defective immediately after 2 months of its installation. The system has been installed in a hotel and as per Ext.P1 issued by the opposite parties to the complainant, the system is guaranteed for 60 months from date of commissioning. The complainant's allegation is that the solar water heater became defective during the period of guarantee. It is a settled position that even if the equipment was purchased for commercial purpose, the purchaser will definitely be a consumer under Sec 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act in respect of services rendered or to be rendered by the seller for the proper functioning of the equipment during the period of guarantee. Hence there is no doubt with regard to the maintainability of this complaint before this Forum.
6. The payment of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- on 10/2/2004 and Rs.50,000/- on 15/3/2004) is evident from Ext.P2 dated 30/3/2004. Besides the above, there is another entry with regard to paid in full on 31/3/2004, which according to the complainant is that the balance amount has been paid on 31/3/2004. The opposite parties have never challenged the same. Exts.P3 to P6 reveal that the solar water heater is not functioning properly and the opposite parties were informed of the same. Ext.P4 is dated 27/4/2005 which shows that the complaint with regard to the same has arisen within 2 months of its installation and the same has been brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties and Ext.P3 dated 15/4/2005 is yet another document which corroborates the allegation in the complaint with regard to the damage in the water heater and the same were brought to the knowledge of the opposite parties. The complainant alleges that inspite of repeated requests, the defects still persist. As per Ext.P3, the opposite parties have admitted that there is damage in the solar water heater and as per it, the opposite parties have stated that the tanks used in the water heater have been damaged by the bad quality of water in their locality. The complainant has pleaded that the opposite parties have istalled the water heater in the complainant's hotel after considering the atmospheric condition, quality of water and such other natural conditions and moreover the water used by the complainant is the water supplied by Kerala Water Authority. We cannot brush the said pleading aside. The water heater has been installed in a seaside resort and the opposite parties ought to have taken sufficient preventions for the same. The complainant has filed an affidavit to the effect that the opposite parties failed to fulfill the promise made in the guarantee card. The documents produced on behalf of the complainant prove that the solar water heater became defective during guarantee period and the failure of the opposite parties in not attending to the repair and after sales service of the solar water heater in time in spite of the various complaints by the complainant is a gross deficiency in service in the manner and nature of performance on the part of the opposite parties resulting loss to the complainant. It was the responsibility of the opposite parties to rectify the defects within the period of guarantee. The complainant has succeeded in proving that the complaint with regard to the trouble with the solar water heater within the guarantee period, was promptly lodged with the opposite parties. When the opposite parties have not disputed before the Forum that the solar water heater supplied to the complainant was defective, there is no necessity of following the procedure laid down in Sec.13(1) of the Consumer Protection Act. The fact that the solar water heater supplied was defective has been proved conclusively by the complainant.
7. In the light of the above discussions, we find that the complainant is entitled to get the solar water heater replaced with a brand new one along with compensation. Obviously, the improper functioning of the solar water heater would have caused loss to the complainant, it is practically impossible to bring out in evidence the actual monetary loss, inconvenience and mental sufferings caused to the complainant. In the light of the materials on record and evidence, we find that an amount of Rs.5,000/- would be reasonable to compensate the same. The complainant is also found entitled for an amount of Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the proceedings.
In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties shall replace the existing defective water heater with a new defect free one in good working condition and take back the old, along with a compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) towards costs of the proceedings within one month of receipt of the order.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, on this the 30th day of May, 2009.
S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.
G. SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
BEENA KUMARI.A, ad. MEMBER.
O.P.No.379/2005
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness : NIL
II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Photocopy of letter No.TNGT/QTN/147/04 dt. 12/1/2004 issued by opposite party. P2 : Photocopy of bill dated 30/3/2004 issued by opp. Party P3 : Photocopy of letter No.KS/QTN/013/2005 dt. 15/4/2005 issued by opp. Party P4 : Photocopy of letter KRR/SW/Solar dt. 18/4/2005. P5 : Photocopy of letter No.TNGT/QTN/286/05 dt. 10/5/2005 issued by opp. Party P6 : Photocopy of letter dt. 17/5/2005 issued to the opp. Party.
III. Opposite parties' witness: NIL
IV. Opposite parties documents: NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
