Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.      This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.    The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant had purchased  a solar inverter under JNNSM Scheme of NABARD  from OP No.1 on 07.4.2014 at the cost of Rs.56,700/-. It is alleged inter alia that for purchasing such inverter the complainant has incurred loan from OP No.4 on payment of Rs.11,400/- towards down payment  and a fixed deposit bond amounting to Rs.25,000/- as mortgage as against 40% subsidy. The solar inverter was carrying 5 years warranty. The complainant alleged that the inverter started trouble in working during the first year of purchase. So, complainant made complaint before OP No.1 for removal of defects. But the service was not provided by OP No.1. It is alleged by the complainant that the warranty card or any document to assure the free home service was also not given by OP No.1 to the complainant. So, finding no other way, the complainant filed the complaint alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.

4.      OP Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 appeared and filed written version. OP No.5 has been set ex parte. OP No.1 filed written version refuting all the allegations. According to this OP, he has provided the inverter under instruction of OP No.3 and has not sold the inverter to the complainant directly. It is the plea of this OP that he has provided the inverter in good condition and the same was installed in the premises of the complainant. There is no any deficiency of service as alleged against OP No.1. The complainant since not purchased the inverter directly from OP No.1, the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under OP No.1 and as such OP No.1 should be exempted from the liability.

5.      OP No.4 is the agent of OP No.5  who filed written version stating that he has only financed to the complainant to purchase the inverter and has no any deficiency of service so far allegations of defective solar inverter. According to this OP, the complainant has purchased the inverter from OP No.1 and for that OP No.1 is answerable and accountable. As there is deficiency of service as alleged against OP No.1 the complaint should be dismissed against OP Nos. 2, 3 and 4. This OP has submitted that after subsidy was available, the same was paid to OP No.1. So, he should be exempted from the liability as there is no such deficiency of service on their part.

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            In the result the dispute is allowed only against OP no.1 and dismissed against OP No.2, 3 and 4. The OP no.1 is directed to repair the inverter at the door of the petitioner within 7 days after receipt of this order, failing  which the OP no.1 shall be liable to refund the cost of inverter with 12% interest from the date of filing of the present dispute till its realization. The OP no.1 is also further directed to issue warranty card and documents of alleged inverter to the petitioner. As regards compensation we allow Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) which will be paid by OP no.1 to the petitioner within one month after receipt of this order. This order has been passed as per observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1993(3) CPR – 7 – SC (Lucknow Dev. Authority vrs. M.K.Gupta). No cost.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the solar inverter was purchased from OP No.1 to install same with premises of  the complainant but the consideration amount has been paid by OP No.3. The learned District Forum without understanding such matter properly has passed illegal order. According to him, the solar inverter has been supplied in good condition and at no point of time, this OP No.1 has any responsibility and the allegation of the complainant is absolutely false and fabricated. Therefore, the impugned order should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

8.      Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 supporting the complainant submitted that there is no any order passed against OP Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 and as such she has nothing to say  but only added that the warranty card was not supplied by OP No.1 to the complainant.

9.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.    It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the solar inverter. The document shows that after incurring loan from OP No.4, this solar inverter was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1. The letter dated 28.6.2014 clearly shows that the inverter has stopped working and he has made the complaint but nobody has come forward to attend the same. He also attached the operation guidelines where it is stated that such inverter should be attended. From the documents, there is reason to believe that the complainant has purchased the solar inverter from OP No.1 but it has not worked well for which he repeatedly requested to OP No.1 to attend the work. The learned District Forum has also observed rightly so and there is nothing found any wrong with the impugned order of the learned District Forum which found deficiency of service with OP No.1. Hence, the impugned order is confirmed.

11.    The appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.