DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, CAMP COURT AT AMRITSAR, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : RBT/CC/2018/361

Date of Institution : 22.05.2018/29.11.2021

Date of Decision : 12.09.2022

Sumit Kumar, Proprietor of Zara Shoe Mart International, Katra Jaimal Singh, Amritsar. 

  …Complainant

Versus

M/s Manaktala Brothers, Adjoining Hotel Shehnaz, Outside Hall Gate, Amritsar through its Proprietor/Partner/Owner.   

…Opposite Party

Complaint U/S 12 and 13 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Present: Sh. Updip Singh Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. Ravi B. Mahajan Adv counsel for the opposite party.

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The present complaint has been received by transfer from District Consumer Commission, Amritsar in compliance of the order dated 26.11.2021 of the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The complainant filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act against Manaktala Brothers, Amritsar. (in short the opposite party). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint as stated by the complainant is running shoe store under the name and style Zara Shoe Mart International alongwith his son, Shailesh Kumar and two sales men. The opposite party running a shop doing business of batteries, electric inverters and solar systems and other allied things. 

3. It is further alleged that in the month of March 2018 one Surinder Singh owner of opposite party approached the complainant for the purpose of solar inverter and complainant agreed to get solar inverter installed in his shop for lighting system of shop excluding Air Conditioner. As per opposite party the requirement of shop is 3-1/2 Kws so opposite party gave quotation of Rs. 1,65,800/- for firment of 3-1/2 Kws inverter Luminous make which included material as well as labour. The said system carried guarantee as well as warranty of 5 years for battery and 25 years for solar plates. Complainant paid Rs. 30,000/- to opposite party on 30.3.2018 for which no receipt was issued by the opposite party and made endorsement on the quotation. As per instructions of the opposite party the complainant got electric wiring of his shop changed and for this purpose out of Rs. 14,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- was paid by the complainant. The complainant spent Rs. 24,075/- more on account of wiring material. After change of electric wiring on 21.4.2018 the opposite party changed the quotation for the solar inverter to Rs. 1,77,950/- for installation of 3-1/2 Kws and except the price rest of the conditions remained the same. Prior to revised quotation the complainant already paid Rs. 1,40,000/- to the opposite party against the installation of solar inverter. The opposite party assured the complainant that proper invoice of system installed alongwith receipts of payment and guarantee and warranty card shall be issued to the complainant after installation of system. Since after installation of solar inverter the same did not take load of electrical fittings in the shop of the complainant and thus on checking the system and on asking the opposite party complainant came to know that the system installed was 3-1/2 KVAs and not 3-1/2 Kws as promised. The complainant asked to change the system to the capacity agreed but opposite party refused to replace the system and gave false complaint against the complainant and his son. The said act of the opposite party for not installing proper capacity of solar inverter system as per requirement of the complainant and as agreed and changing the price of the system and not providing invoice and receipts of payments and guarantee and warranty document, amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-

1) The opposite party may be directed to replace the solar inverter system installed with system of 3-1/2 Kws capacity and provide proper invoice of system, receipts of payment, guarantee and warranty card against balance payment as per old quotation. Or in the alternative refund Rs. 1,40,000/- amount already paid to the opposite party with Rs. 10,000/- as labour paid to electrician of opposite party for replacement of wiring with Rs. 24,075/- as costs of electrical material for the purpose of replacement of wiring of the shop with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of amounts received by the opposite party/ spent on replacement of wiring till date of actual refund of the amount. 

2) To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment. 

3) Any other relief to which the complainant is found entitled. 

4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable and complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands. Further, the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. Further, the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and present complaint is an abuse of the process of law.

5. On merits, the opposite party submitted that it is the complainant who himself visited the opposite party for installation of solar system in his shop and solar system chosen by the complainant was installed in his shop. Firstly, he was apprised about the costs of the equipments to be installed for the said purpose. The complainant asked to install 3-1/2 KVA inverter instead of 3-1/2 KW inverter but the complainant is unaware about that in DC circuit or off grid inverter it creates no difference between KVA or KW. The unity is practically in DC Circuits. The complainant himself chosen Off Grid solar system to install in his shop rather than the On Grid System. So answering opposite party installed Off Grid inverter and Controller, batteries and panels according to the demand and choice of the complainant. Further, the warranty is provided by the manufacturing company. When the system was installed the wiring in the premises of the complainant was not proper and complainant was asked about the same to get the wiring of his premises proper, but he asked the opposite party to get wiring change so the answering opposite party provided the electrician to the complainant who demanded Rs. 14,000/- for the said purpose but complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- to the electrician and did not pay the remaining amount. The total cost of the solar system including the fittings charges was Rs. 1,77,950/- out of which Rs. 30,000/- was paid in advance and after that complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- on different dates and then Rs. 10,000/- and total Rs. 1,40,000/- and remaining amount of Rs. 37,950/- is not paid by the complainant. As far as amount spent on wiring material is concerned the answering opposite party has nothing to do with the same. As far as change is rate is concerned firstly the complainant demanded products of Livfast company so the quotation was accordingly given but at the time of installation he demanded products of Luminous and Sukam Batteries so the second quotation was changed accordingly. Even 3-4 times the complainant decided to change the location of the solar panels which are installed on roof of his premises due to which extra angles were to be installed and extra labour costs has to bear by the answering opposite party. At the time of installation proper bills, warranty cards etc were duly issued to the complainant alongwith receipt dated 1.4.2018 but till date he has not paid the entire bill amount as such he cannot claim proper receipts and invoice was not issued. Still Rs. 37,950/- out of the bill amount is due from him besides Rs. 4,000/- of the electrician. The system which is installed can generate approximately 400-500 electricity and still takes the benefit of those products. Both the inverters are different On Grid and Off Grid were shown to the complainant and he chosen Off Grid System which works on DC Circuit, so in Off Grid Inverter KW and KVA is equal in DC Circuit because the voltage and current are not out of phase. In DC Circuits KVA and KW is equal. The opposite party got made visits of Engineers of both the companies who checked the system and found that system is working properly and there is no fault in the same. The complaint was moved against the complainant an1074d his son as when the opposite party demanded the amount from the complainant he made hue and cry and refused to make payment of the due amount. The son of the complainant armed with run visited the shop of the opposite party and threatened him. Rest of the allegations mentioned in the complaint are denied by the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Lastly, the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

6. To prove his case the complainant filed documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 and to rebut the case of the complainant opposite party filed documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-8 besides both parties their respective affidavits. 

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record on the file. Written arguments also filed by the opposite party. 

8. The complainant is running a shoe store under the name and style Zara Shoe Mart International at Katra Jaimal Singh, Amritsar. It is run by him alongwith his son and with the help of two salesmen as per requirement. The complainant requires solar inverter system for his shop, therefore, he approached opposite party for installation of solar system. The opposite party gave quotation after measuring electric load of the shop of complainant which comes to 3-1/2 Kws and opposite party gave  quotation of Rs. 1,65,800/- for fitment of 3-1/2 Kws inverter which included material as well as labour. As per instructions of the opposite party the complainant got electric wiring of his shop changed through electrician provided by the opposite party as per requirement of solar inverter so as to get effective results. Opposite party instructed the complainant to pay Rs. 14,000/- in total to the electrician for the purpose of change of wiring out of which Rs. 10,000/- were given by the complainant. After the replacement of wiring of shop of the complainant, on 21.4.2018 opposite party changed the quotation for the solar inverter to Rs. 1,77,950/- which was again for installation of 3-1/2 Kws, rest of the conditions remains the same. The complainant had already paid Rs. 1,40,000/- to the opposite party against installation of the solar inverter. After installation of solar inverter, the same did not take load to electrical fittings in the shop of the complainant, thus on checking the system and on asking to the opposite party, complainant came to know that the system installed was of 3-1/2 KVAs and not 3-1/2 Kws as promised. On asking opposite party by the complainant to change the system to the capacity as per quotation given by the opposite party, but opposite party is refusing to replace the same with system of appropriate capacity as agreed, rather insists for balance of payment, which complainant is always willing to pay if opposite party provided the system of 3-1/2 Kws as agreed in quotation. As per report Ex.C-6 by JS Malhotra BE Mechanical Surveyor/Loss Assessor with License No. SLA/22363 Registered Valuer F-3188, one document dated 21.4.2018 it is mentioned that UPS Luminous supplied is of 3.2 KW whereas according to the copy of bill attached with the reply of M/s Manaktala Brothers dated 23.4.2018 the capacity of UPS inverter mentioned is 3.5 KVA. The inverter of capacity of 3.5 KVA cannot run electrical equipments of capacity of 3.5 KW when the installation are on AC system. The electrical system installed in the premises of the complainant inspected is being run on AC (Alternate current) and not on DC (Direct Current). Since the inverter installed as above is connected to electrical system as well as to the solar plates for giving power to the batteries for the purpose of charging them, there cannot be much saving of electricity bill for the premises as the inverter will always consume some electricity from PSPCL line for the purpose of charging the batteries and running the inverter system. 

9. As per the opposite party the solar system installed in the shop of the complainant is as per choice of the complainant. The complainant was apprised about the costs of the equipments to be installed for said purpose. The complainant asked to install 3-1/2 KVA inverter instead of 3-1/2 KW inverter, but the complainant is unaware about that in DC circuit or Off Grid inverter it creates no difference between KVA or KW. He himself choose off Grid Solar system to install in his shop, rather than the On Grid System. So, the answering opposite party installed Off Grid inverter and controller (retrofit), batteries and panels according to the demand and choice of the complainant for Off Grid System. When the system was installed the wiring in the premises of the complainant was not proper and complainant was apprised about the same to get the wiring of his premises proper, but he asked the opposite party to get wiring change so the answering opposite party provided the electrician to the complainant who demanded Rs. 14,000/- for the said purpose but complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- to the electrician and did not pay the remaining amount to him. The total cost of the solar system including the fittings charges was Rs. 1,77,950/- out of which Rs. 1,40,000/- was paid and remaining amount of Rs. 37,950/- is not paid by the complainant to the answering opposite party despite repeated requests.  As far as change is rate is concerned firstly the complainant demanded products of Livfast company so the quotation was accordingly given but at the time of installation he demanded products of Luminous and Sukam Batteries so the second quotation was changed accordingly. The complainant decided to get installed Luminous company products of Kaydee Distribution because in Luminous company there are 3-4 types of product and their distributors are different and the complainant decided to get installed the Kaydee Distributor products which is mentioned on the quotation with distributor name. Both the inverters are different On Grid and Off Grid which were shown to the complainant in company catalogue and he was fully made aware of each and every aspect, but he rejected the On Grid System and chosen Off Grid System which works on DC (Direct Current) Circuit. 

10. From the above discussion, it is clear that the complainant was given quotation dated 1.4.2018 Ex.C-3 by the opposite party for UPS Luminous 3.5 KW rate Rs. 15,500/- and in the bill Ex.R-2 one piece 3.5 KVA Luminous Home UPS inverter is for Rs. 15,500/-. This is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. As per Surveyor report Ex.C-6 the inverter of the capacity of 3.5 KVA cannot run electrical equipments of the capacity of 3.5 KW when the installations are on AC system. The electrical system installed in the premises of the complainant is being run on AC current and not on DC current. Therefore, the present complaint is partly allowed and accordingly the opposite party is directed to change the 3.5 KVA UPS Luminous Inverter and installed the 3.5 KW Luminous inverter in the shop of the complainant, as per the satisfaction of the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs. 3,500/- as costs and litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within the period of 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order. The complainant is also directed to pay the remaining amount of Rs. 37,950/- to the opposite party and  Rs. 4,000/- to the electrician after the compliance of this order. Copy of the order will be supplied to the parties by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar as per rules. File be sent back to the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. 

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        12th Day of September 2022

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President

              

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member