Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/32/2014

DR. Madana Kalyan Raju, S/o Balaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

P. Parandhama - Opp.Party(s)

G. Ramaiah Pillai

07 Feb 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:28.06.2014

Order Date: 07.02.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

SATURDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

C.C.No.32/2014

 

Between

 

Dr.M.Kalyan Raju,

S/o. Balaiah,

Regd. Medical Practitioner,

2-98, B.N.Kandriga Village and Post,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         P.Parandhama,

            S/o. not known to the complainant,

            Contact No.9676143717,

            C/o. Power Tek Solar System,

            D.No.1-158, V.P.Agraharam,

            R.C.Road,

            Tirupati.

 

2.         Guruprasad,

            S/o. not known to the complainant,

            Contact No.9700085025,

            Dealer Power Tek Solar System,

            D.No.1-158, V.P.Agraharam,

            R.C.Road,

            Tirupati.

 

3.         Power Tech Solar System,

            Regd. Office, by its Authorized Signatory,

            No.63, 1^st Main, 3^rd Cross,

            KEB Office Road,

            Anjana Nagar,

            Magadi Main Road,

            Bangalore – 560 091.                                                          …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 06.02.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai, counsel for the complainant, and in-person for opposite party No.3., and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Sections-12 and 14 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the reliefs of 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to refund the amount of Rs.2,45,000/- paid by the complainant towards cost of solar power system with capacity of 5 KV and 2) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.32,000/- paid by the complainant for the cost of batteries and 3) for cost of the litigation.

2.  The brief averments in the complaint are:- That the complainant after contacting opposite parties 1 and 2, placed the order (under Ex.A1 dt:01.03.2014) and on 07.03.2014 he has paid a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- to opposite party No.1 under Ex.A2 (both Exs.A1 and A2 are issued by opposite party No.1), requesting opposite party No.1 for supply of 5 KV Power Tek Solar system / house lighting. The opposite party No.1 on 25.03.2014 visited the residence of complainant, brought the batteries and inverter, demanded the complainant to pay Rs.32,000/- towards cost of the batteries. Accordingly, the complainant has paid the same to opposite party No.1 as shown in Ex.A9 bank account extract, and on 25.03.2014, the opposite party No.1 installed the Power Tek Solar system but from the next day of installation onwards, the system was not functioning. Immediately, it was informed to the opposite party No.1 for which opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to charge the batteries and inverter. Even after charging the batteries and inverter, the system had worked hardly for one hour only. Again it was informed to opposite party No.1 for which opposite party No.1 replied that it may be due to wrong connection and it will be rectified. Later he did not turn-up. On verification the complainant found that opposite party No.1 had supplied only 1.08 KV system instead of 5 KV system as agreed by opposite party No.1. Hence the complaint.

3.  On 01.05.2014 the complainant got issued notices to opposite parties 1 to 3. Though notices were served on opposite parties 1 to 3, opposite party No.3 alone gave reply. The complainant has given-up his claim against opposite party No.2, as such the case against opposite party No.2 was dismissed. Though an opportunity was given to opposite party No.1 till 06.02.2015, he neither made appearance nor placed his defense either personally or through advocate, as such he was set exparte on 06.02.2015 and proceeded with. The complainant did not seek any relief against opposite party No.3.

4.  The complainant has filed his chief affidavit and written arguments as well along with Exs.A1 to A9. Heard the counsel for complainant

5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether opposite party No.1 has supplied defective product or the product

       with lesser capacity, whether he is liable to refund the amounts paid by the

       complainant?        

(ii)  Whether opposite party No.1 installed the solar power system with a

        capacity of 1.08 KV instead of agreed capacity of 5 KV?

(iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

(iv)  To what relief?

6. Point Nos. (i) and (ii):- The complainant specifically averred in his complaint, chief affidavit and also in written arguments that on the advise of his friend J.Gopala Krishna, Lakshmi Jewellaries, Srikalahasti, who is a customer of opposite parties 1 and 2, contacted opposite parties 1 and 2 for supply of power tek solar system of 5 KV in the capacity of 5000 volts for home lighting, for which opposite parties 1 and 2 agreed to install the system. On that the complainant has placed an order under Ex.A1 dt:01.03.2014. Later on 07.03.2014, opposite party No.1 has collected Rs.2,45,000/- under Ex.A2, from the complainant towards cost of 5 KV power tek solar system and on 25.03.2014 opposite party No.1 brought the batteries, solar system panels and also inverter and demanded Rs.32,000/- towards cost of the batteries. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.32,000/- to opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 has installed the power tek solar system on 25.03.2014, right from the next day of installation, the power system was not functioning and the complainant immediately informed the opposite party No.1, for which opposite party No.1 advised the complainant to charge the batteries and inverter. Even after charging the batteries and inverter, the system had worked hardly for one hour only. Again it was informed to opposite party No.1, for which opposite party No.1 replied that it may be due to wrong connection and it will be rectified, later he did not turn-up. On verification, the complainant found that the opposite party No.1 has supplied only 1.08 KV system instead of 5 KV as agreed for the usage of 2 or 3 A/c, one greez,        1 HP motor, 8 fans and 16 bulbs. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice under Ex.A5, for which opposite parties 1 and 2 did not gave reply or attended on the system. The opposite party No.3 alone gave reply under Ex.C1 stating that he has not supplied the Power Tek Solar system to opposite party No.1. The warranty card under Ex.A3 is not that of opposite party No.3,  that the amount also paid to opposite party No.1 under Ex.A2 personally. The work order under Ex.A1 is under the name of Sun Solar Solutions but not the Power Tek Solar System. Therefore, opposite party No.3 is not responsible for the transactions between the complainant and opposite party No.1. Though sufficient opportunity was given to opposite party No.1 till 06.02.2015, neither he made appearance nor placed defense either personally or through advocate, thus opposite party No.1 also remained exparte.

7.  The learned counsel for the complainant has reiterated the averments of the complaint, in his written arguments and the complainant also re-produced the complaint averments in his chief affidavit. The evidence produced on behalf of the complainant remained un-challenged. Exs.A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 clearly establishes that the opposite party No.1 has collected a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- towards cost of power tek solar system of 5 KV in the capacity of 5000 volts but installed 8 panels with capacity of 135 volts, each, totally 1.08 KV instead of installing 5 KV solar system. He also brought the batteries and inverter and collected Rs.32,000/- from the complainant towards cost of batteries. Thus, it is established by the complainant that opposite party No.1 has supplied the power tek solar system with less capacity of 1.08 KV as against 5 KV capacity. As such, opposite party No.1 is liable to refund the amount he collected towards cost of 5 KV solar power system. That apart, the opposite party No.1, having installed less capacity system, failed to get the defects rectified in the system, as such he also committed deficiency in service, on this ground also, opposite party No.1 is liable to refund the amount. Accordingly these points are answered.

8.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the opposite party No.1 is guilty of deficiency in service and also mislead the complainant by installing less capacity power system as against 5 KV power system and caused much inconvenience to the complainant. Therefore, the relief sought for by the complainant is quite reasonable and justified, as such the complainant is entitled to the reilefs sought for. Accordingly, this point is answered.

9. Point No.(iv):-  In view of our holding on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that opposite party No.1 has collected Rs.2,45,000/- towards cost of the Power Tek Solar system and Rs.32,000/- towards cost of the batteries but installed the power system with less capacity of 1.08 KV as against 5 KV, thus mislead the complainant  and also installed defective product. As such, the complainant is entitled for refund of cost of the system Rs.2,45,000/-  already paid by him under Ex.A2 dt:07.03.2014. Likewise, the complainant is also entitled for refund of Rs.32,000/- paid by him towards cost of batteries as shown in Ex.A9 bank account extract of the complainant. Since the complainant has not sought for any compensation from the opposite parties, such relief cannot be granted. The complainant himself has given-up the claim against opposite party No.2, as such complaint against opposite party No.2 was dismissed. The complainant since did not seek any relief against opposite party No.3, no relief can be granted against opposite party No.3. Ex.A1 work order dt:01.03.2014 and Ex.A2 issued by opposite party No.1 shows that opposite party No.1 has received a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- from the complainant. The opposite party No.1 is hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs.2,45,000/- + Rs.32,000/- (cost of batteries) to the complainant.

In the result, the complaint is allowed against opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.2,77,000/- in total (Rupees two lakhs seventy seven thousands only) with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e. 28.06.2014, till realization and opposite party No.1 further directed to pay Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards cost of the complaint within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Complaint against opposite party No.3 is dismissed as no reliefs sought against opposite party No.3.         

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 7^th day of February, 2015.   

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

 

 PW-1:  Dr. M.Kalyan Raju (Chief/ Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/S

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.A1.	01-03-2014: Order form for supply of Solar System.
2.	07-03-2014: Order form by paying advance of Rs. 1, 00,000/- towards the cost of Rs. 2, 45,000/- for the product of Home lighting 5 KV.
3.	Copy of warranty of 5 years showing the Opposite Party No. 3 as the system maker.
4.	Particulars of solar panel system found in the website.
5.	Office copy of Legal Notice to Opposite Parties 1 to 3 with postal acknowledgements from Opposite Party No.3. Dt: 01.05.2014.
6.	Reply Dt: 10.05.2014 from the Opposite Party No.3.
7.	Letter to the Postal Superintendent to intimate about the delivery of registered cover addressed to 1 and 2 Opposite Parties.  Dt: 23.05.2014.
8.	Reply from the Superintendent intimating that the postal cover was delivered to the Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 02.06.2014
9.	Copy of Bank Statement showing the payment of Rs.32, 000/- on 25.03.2014 to the Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 02.05.2014.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                     Sd/-      

                                                                                                                President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite parties.