In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/221/2023.
Date of filing: 14/12/2023. Date of Final Order: 05/12/2024.
Krishnendu Patra,
son of Manik Patra,
Vill & P.O. Soaluk (Fullbagan)
P.S. Pursurah,
Dist. Hooghly-712410...............................................……complainant.
vs
M/S. Loom Solar Pvt. Ltd.
Having its office at-
i) Plot No. 21/1, Main Mathura Road,
Sector 7 Police Station,
Faridabad, Harayana-121006.
ii) Corporate Office at 14/6, Mathura,
P.S. Palla Road, Sector- 27B, Faridabad,
Harayana-121003. ................................................…..opposite party.
Before: President: Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member : Babita Chaudhuri.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Babita Chaudhuri, Member.
Brief fact of this case:- The complainant Krishnendu Patra, an intention to purchase Solar Panel from the opposite party, being Model No. SHARK 550 Watt, bifacial half cut for installation in his house and after satisfying of the opposite party’s assurance and as per terms and conditions of the opposite party complainant paid entire amount towards the opposite party in respect of said solar panel and the op acknowledge the same by whatsapp order no. 50706 dt. 19.8.23.
Thereafter the complainant received Solar panel from the opposite party by courier service and after that when technical team reached to the complainant house and when they unboxed the said solar panel for installation on such pretext was utter shock to the complainant that the opposite party by their unfair trade practices provided your complainant the model of the said solar panel i.e. Shark 550 watt-Mono perc half cut which is not as per the order of the complainant i.e. Shark 550 watt- bifacial half cut for such the complainant intimated to the op to rectify and the concerned op after getting the said information further assured to the complainant that rectify their fault within few days but day after day the op did not pay any heed.
That on 14/09/2023 complainant received one parcel from local courier service, which provide by op, under scheme of cash delivery of Rs.16,500/- but when the complainant open the said solar panel box, he got shoked as the op provided used, damage, and repaired solar panel of another model, then and there the complainant intimated the entire facts to the op ,they further assured to solve the problem within few days but on several occasion the complainant complaint to the op grievance cell and lastly on consumer grievance cell but took no fruitful step in that respect.
Under the above circumstances complainants therefore prayed:-
direction upon the op for make refund of the amount paid by the complainant i.e. Rs. 49,500/- with interest as per law.
direction upon the op to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for his mental agony in respect deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
direction upon the op to pay Rs.60,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
- Whether the complainants are entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyer of the complainant
Complainant filed written notes of argument. As per the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant is to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the ld. Advocate of the complainant heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and document produced by party.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties inspite of receiving notice have not filed any W/V and also have not filed any petition on the ground of non maintainability of this case. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainants are residing at P.S. Pursurah, District. Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 50 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Moreover, u/s 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. On close examination of the pleadings of the complainant it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite party. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law.
All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is consumer of the opposite party and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite party. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.
The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite party or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not? These two points of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.
For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in respect of points of consideration nos. 4 and 5 this District Commission finds that there is necessity of making scrutiny of the evidence given by the complainant. In this regard it is important to note that the ops have neither filed any W/V nor filed any evidence on affidavit to disprove the case of the complainant. On close examination of the evidence given by the complainant’s side it is revealed that the complainant has categorically described his case in the evidence and the evidence given by the complainant is also supported by documents. It is also revealed that the evidence (oral and documentary) which is given by the complainant side remains unchallenged and/ or uncontroverted as no cross examination has been highlighted in this case by the op. After going through the materials of this case record this District Commission finds that there is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged and uncontroverted testimony of the complainant side. It is also transpires that the complainant has proved his case by way of adducing evidence in connection with the points of consideration nos. 4 and 5 which have been adopted in this case.
All the above noted factors are clearly reflecting that the complainant is entitled to get relief in this case which has been prayed by this District Commission.
Hence, it is accordingly
Ordered
that the complaint case being no. 221 of 2023 be and the same is allowed on ex parte with cost.
The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 49,500/- to the complainant, after return back all the materials, which the op already delivered to the complainant.
the opposite party is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5, 000/- in favour of the complainant.
The order shall be complied within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the award amount shall carry on interest @9% p.a. in favour of the complainant till realization of the full amount.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
