IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 214/09 DATED 23.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt. Aparajitha W/o Ravindranath, No.114, 3rd stage, ‘D’ Block, 5th Main, Mysore-570017.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. P.G. Ravindra, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. Haneef, Proprietor, M/s Taurus Systems, No.428, 1st Floor, Viswamanava Double Road, Opposite Judges Quarters, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-570023.<br /> 2. Manjunath, B.R. Enterprises, No.510, K.R.S. Road, Hootagalli, Mysore.<br /> ( By Sri. V. Krishnamurthy, Advocate for O.P.1, Sri Shivaprakash A.S. Advocate for O.P.2)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 18.06.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 29.07.2009<br /> Date of order : 23.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 3 Months 24 Days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint, Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties, seeking a directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, for mental agony, hardship and sufferings due to deficiency in service and also to return the sale consideration amount of Rs.28,000/-, in respect of Solar Water Heating System.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint, it is alleged that, the complainant has purchased a 200 LPD Solar Water Heating System Anu make on 23.07.2008 from the first opposite party, for a sum of Rs.28,080/-. The first opposite party did not issue warranty card stating that, it has to be secured from the manufacturer. The complainant contacted the manufacturer at Bangalore and in reply dated 13.03.2009, price per unit is mentioned as 22,152/- and the warranty period one year. But the opposite party has charged Rs.28,080/-. When the complainant enquired regarding the excess money of Rs.5,928/-, he did not reply convincingly, but it was told the price of the system ought to have been Rs.38080/-, but it has been sold for Rs.28,080/-, as old Solar Water Heating System was purchased, which was worth Rs.10,000/-. It is further alleged that, the first opposite party instructed the second opposite party to plumbing work and the system was installed. The system was not attaining the temperature. Also in the system the water was leaking through several places, as shown in the sketch annexed to the complaint. The complainant called upon the first opposite party over phone and even wrote letter. It was informed, the defect was in the plumbing work. Leakage of the water damaged the roof of the house. Also, every day 250 liters water is wasted. Both of parties committed deficiency in service. Both of them jointly and severally are liable. The defect occurred during the warranty period. Also it is alleged that, the first opposite party has assured to make an arrangement to secure loan to purchase the system, but loan application has not been forwarded. On these ground, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The first opposite party has filed his version, denying almost all the allegations made in the complaint in paragraphs 1 to 8. In the remaining paragraphs of the version it is contended that, the second opposite party is totally stranger to the first opposite party. It is contended that, the complainant has approached the first opposite party under exchange offer of old Solar Water Heating System with new one. After negotiations, old system price was fixed at Rs.10,000/-. Hence, the complainant paid Rs.23,000/- to the first opposite party, for the present system. It is denied that plumbing work was done through this opposite party. It is contended that, the complainant being an employee of the Bank intended to raise loan and requested to raise bill for Rs.28,080/-, the actual price of the system. It is contended that, the complainant received the goods in good working condition. On these ground, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. The second opposite party in the version has contended that, plumbing work was done, as per the instructions of the first opposite party, in its presence. It is stated, in several places, in the system there is leakage of water at the bottom of the cylinder. Also, it is contended that, when this opposite party done plumbing work, the first opposite party did not raise any objection. Plumbing work was done to the satisfaction of the complainant and the first opposite party. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. On the other hand, for the opposite party, the proprietor has filed his affidavit and produced certain documents. The second opposite party also filed his affidavit. We have heard the arguments of all the advocates for the parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 6. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of both or any one of the opposite parties and that she is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 7. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 8. Point No.1:- So for concerned to purchase of the Solar Water Heating System from the first opposite party by the complainant, there is no dispute. However, regarding the price and related matter, there is some dispute between the parties, which will be considered later on if necessary.<br /> <br /> 9. The main grievance of the complainant is that, instead of getting hot water from the system, the water began to leak in various places of the system, shown in the sketch annexed to the complaint. It further damaged roof of the house and so also everyday, about 250 liters of water is being wasted. Thus, leakage of water from the system is the main grievance of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 10. Even though, the first opposite party denied the claim of the complainant in general, in the middle of the 5th paragraph of the version it is contended that, the defect in the said Solar Water Heating System has occurred due to the defective plumbing work done by the second opposite party. The second opposite party, in the version admitted that, in the system at several places there is leakage of water. Thus, apart from the proof of the leakage of the water from the system, that has been admitted by the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 11. As regards the guarantee, the complainant has stated that, the first opposite party did not give guarantee card stating that, it was to be secured from Bangalore, but ultimately it was not given. She claims that, when she approached the manufacturer at Bangalore, there was reply as per the document at page 59, wherein one year guarantee against manufacturing defects is stated. Hence, from this document it is clear that, the system had warranty for a period of one year. Though the learned advocate for the first opposite party with reference to validity period stated therein, tried to contend that, it was for 30 days, in fact, it is not so as submitted, but 30 days is in respect of the offer. Below that line warranty for one year is specifically mentioned.<br /> <br /> 12. The learned advocate for the first opposite party, further tried to contend that, since the complainant got the system in exchange offer to the old one, there is no guarantee or warrantee. But to substantiate this fact, there is no evidence. On the other hand, from the document referred to above, there is one year guarantee within the said period the system has problem of leakage of water noted above.<br /> <br /> 13. Main contention of the opposite party is that, the leakage of water in the system is due to improper plumbing work done by the second opposite party. The complainant contended that, plumbing work is done by the second opposite party, at the instance of the first opposite party. Considering the facts and evidence in this regardd, we do consider that, there is dispute as to whether in fact, the second opposite party done the plumbing work as an agent of the first opposite party and whether the second opposite party is an expert or technician to do the said work, but the installation certificate issued by the first opposite party, is sufficient to hold it liable for the deficiency in service. The installation certificate is produced by the complainant on page 52. The first opposite party has also in the version contended that, the complainant received the goods in good condition. In the installation certificate, the first opposite party has certified that, the system is in good working condition. If the plumbing work done by the second opposite party was not proper or imperfect, the first opposite party ought not to have certified that, the system was working in good condition. As regards, the contention of the first opposite party that the goods received by the complainant in good condition, the working of the system cannot be ascertained only after the installation of the system. Only after some time defects can be found, if any. Hence, because in the installation of the certificate it is stated that, system is in good working condition, is not the conclusive proof that, the system worked well after installation. At the cost of repetition any defect in the system can be found only after it works for some period.<br /> <br /> 14. The facts and the material record established that, the complainant purchased the system in question from the first opposite party and it has certain problems during the warranty period and as such, deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party has been proved. Accordingly, we answer the point partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 15. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The first opposite party is hereby directed to rectify all the defects in the Solar Water Heating System, which is the subject matter of the present complaint within the month from the date of the order making the system in good working condition in terms of the warranty.<br /> 3. The first opposite party also pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- cost of the proceedings to the complainant.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 23rd November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />