Punjab

Faridkot

CC/16/253

Ruminder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Proprietor Sun at Solutions - Opp.Party(s)

Ashu Mittal

20 Apr 2017

ORDER

  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :         253      

Date of Institution :   7.09.2016

Date of Decision :     20.04.2017

Raminder Singh aged about 40 years, s/o Sh Gurmail Singh, # 922, Green Avenue, Faridkot.                                                                    

.....Complainant

Versus

1. Proprietor/Partner, Sun At Work Solar Soutions, Opp. Thana Sadar, Kotkapura Road, Faridkot.
2. Sukam Power Systems Ltd, Corporate Office, Plot No. 54, Udyog Vihar, Phase VI, Sector 37, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana.
3. Sukam Power Systems Ltds 322, AZ, Model Town Extn. Ludhiana, NR Ismit Singh Chowk, Ludhiana-141001.                                 ..........Ops

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum: Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

               Sh Purshotam Singla, Member.

 

Present: Sh Ashu Mittal, Ld Counsel for Complainant,

              Sh Kulwinder Singh, Ld Counsel for OP-1,

              Sh Rana Singh Brar, Ld Counsel for OP-2 and 3.

 

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                          Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to OPs to replace the defective Solar PCU with new one or to refund the cost price of same and for further directing OPs to pay Rs.30,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental tension suffered by complainant alongwith litigation expenses.

   2                                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant purchased a Solar PCU make Sukam from OP-1 vide bill dated 1.07.2014 for Rs.50,000/-on cash payment on guarantee of 2 years against any kind of defects. Said Solar PCU is manufactured by OP-2 and services are provided by OP-3. It is submitted that Solar PCU stopped working within 3 days of installation due to some manufacturing defect. Complainant immediately informed OP-1 and then, OP-3 repaired the same and after 2-3 months, same problem persisted and Solar PCU stopped working again. Complainant requested Ops to replace the Solar PCU, but they did not do so and assured to remove the defect. It is further submitted that thereafter, Solar PCU stopped working and failed 2 times in 2014, four times in 2015 and also in February and July 2016. Repeated requests made by complainant to get Solar PCU replaced bore no fruit and Ops kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant also issued legal notice dated 10.08.2016 to OPs, but all in vain as they did not bother to give reply to the notice. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of Ops and has caused great inconvenience, harassment and mental agony to complainant. Complainant has prayed for directing OPs to replace the defective solar PCU with a new one and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for harassment and mental agony suffered by him besides litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                            Ld counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 20.09.2016, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties.

4                                 On receipt of notice, OP-1 filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint in hand is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. It is averred that OP-1 sold the Solar PCU worth Rs.50,000/- to complainant in sealed pack condition with two years guarantee as purchased from Ops and on receiving complaint from complainant, OP-1 informed his head office, who sent mechanic to repair the Solar PCU and after two months, complainant again received complainant regarding defect in Solar PCU and again on informing head office, they sent mechanic to repair the same. Said mechanic told answering OP that there is a manufacturing defect in Solar PCU and OP-1 requested OP-2 and 3 to replace the same and in this way, answering OP is not at fault as once a product is sold, the liability for providing services and replacement lies with Company. However, on merits, OP-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

 5                               OP-2 and 3 also filed reply taking preliminary objections that complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint because as per bill dt 1.07.2014, it is specifically mentioned that “goods once sold will not be taken back and warrantee will be as per manufactured policies”. It is asserted that as per bill warrantee of the Solar PCU has expired and complainant is not entitled to any relief. However on merits, OP-3 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being false and concocted ones and asserted that no cause of action arises against OP-3 as Solar PCU was purchased on 1.07.2014 and warrantee period has expired on 30.06.2016. It is averred that first complaint regarding Solar PCU received on 13.05.2015 and on thorough investigation by Company Engineer, no defect was found; other complainant received on 15.09.2015 having card problem, which was replaced by Ops. In complaint dated 19.05.2016, no defect was found, but for the satisfaction of complainant, Engineer changed the main card. After completion of warranty period, Ops again received complaint dated 25.07.2016 and on checking system was found okay and in complaint dated 9.10.2016 with problem of IGBT, same was replaced in good will even after expiry of warrantee period. It is further averred that allegations levelled by complainant are false and incorrect and there is no deficiency in service on their part. They have prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                        Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-12 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-2 and 3 tendered in evidence affidavit of Karanpreet Singh Service Engineer as Ex OP-2-3/1 and documents Ex OP-2-3/2 to 5 and then, closed the same. OP-1 did not tender his evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and then, closed his evidence.

8                                                 We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

9                                        Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that complainant purchased a Solar PCU make Sukam from OP-1 vide bill dated 1.07.2014 for Rs.50,000/-on cash payment on guarantee of 2 years against any kind of defect. Said Solar PCU is manufactured by OP-2 and services are provided by OP-3. It is submitted that Solar PCU stopped working within 3 days of installation due to some manufacturing defect and complainant immediately informed OP-1 and then, OP-3 repaired the same. After 2-3 months, same problem persisted and Solar PCU stopped working again. Complainant requested Ops to replace the Solar PCU, but they did not do so and assured to remove the defect. It is further submitted that thereafter, Solar PCU stopped working and failed 2 times in 2014, four times in 2015 and also in February and July 2016.  Repeated requests made by complainant to get Solar PCU replaced bore no fruit and Ops kept putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant also issued legal notice dated 10.08.2016 to OPs, but all in vain and they did not pay any heed to his requests. All this act of OPs amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.

10                        To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 argued before the Forum that present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as OP-1 sold the Solar PCU worth Rs.50,000/- to complainant in sealed pack condition with two years guarantee as purchased from Ops and on receiving complaint from complainant, OP-1 informed OP-2 and 3, who sent mechanic to repair the Solar PCU, but after two months, he again received complainant regarding defect in Solar PCU and again on informing OP-2 and 3 his head office, they sent mechanic to repair the same. Said mechanic told answering OP that there is a manufacturing defect in Solar PCU and OP-1 requested OP-2 and 3 to replace the same and in this way, answering OP is not at fault as once a product is sold, the liability for providing services and replacement lies with Company. OP-1 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

11                           Stand of OP-2 and 3 is that complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct to file the present complaint because as per bill dt 1.07.2014, it is specifically mentioned there that “goods once sold will not be taken back and warrantee will be as per manufactured policies”. It is asserted that as per bill warrantee of the Solar PCU has expired and complainant is not entitled to any relief.OP-3 has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being false and concocted ones and asserted that no cause of action arises against OP-3 as Solar PCU was purchased on 1.07.2014 and warrantee period has expired on 30.06.2016. It is averred that first complaint regarding Solar PCU received on 13.05.2015 and on thorough investigation by Company Engineer, no defect was found, other complainant received on 15.09.2015 having card problem, which was replaced by Ops. In complaint dated 19.05.2016, no defect was found, but for the satisfaction of complainant, Engineer changed the main card. After completion of warranty period, Ops again received complaint dated 25.07.2016 and on checking system was found okay and in complaint dated 9.10.2016 with problem of IGBT, same was replaced in good will even after expiry of warrantee period. It is further averred that allegations levelled by complainant are false and incorrect and there is no deficiency in service on their part. They have prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

12                         The case of the complainant is that he purchased Solar PCU make Sukam from OP-1 vide bill dated 1.07.2014 for Rs.50,000/-on cash payment and said system carried the warrantee of two years. Said Solar PCU was having manufacturing defect and it used to stop working just after 2-3 days of installation. On complaints by complainant, Ops sent their mechanic who repaired the same, but every time one or other defect persisted and caused harassment to complainant. Complainant made several requests and even sent legal notice to Ops to replace the defective Solar PCU, but Ops paid no heed to his requests, which amounts to deficiency in service. In reply, OP-1 brought before the Forum that he is authorized agent of OP-2 and 3 and he sold this product to complainant in sealed pack condition and on receiving the complaint from complainant, he immediately informed Ops, who sent their mechanic to repair the same. He has done his part of job as he has also requested OP-2 and 3 to replace the said Solar PCU, because as per their own mechanic there is some manufacturing defect in said system. He stressed that there is no deficiency in service on his part and prayed for dismissal of complaint. On the other hand, OP-2 and 3 have denied all the allegations being false and concocted ones and prayed for dismissal of complaint on the ground that as per bill dated1.07.2014, warrantee for said system stands expired and now, complainant has no right to misuse the advantage of warrantee period. Moreover, they have already attended all the complaints of complainant and gave effective services.

13            From the careful perusal of record, it is observed that it is admitted case of the parties that complainant purchased said Solar PCU from OP-1 and it is manufactured by OP-2 and services for repair are provided by OP-3. Bill Ex C-6 proves that complainant is the consumer of Ops and purchased said Solar PCU from OP-1. Documents Ex C-7 and C-8 are job sheets regarding services provided by mechanic of Ops and Ex C-9 contains text messages clearly proving the fact that complainant registered complaints regarding defects in Solar PCU with Ops on several dates. Op-2 and 3 have themselves admitted in reply that on complaints by complainant regarding defects in Solar PCU, they sent their Engineer to give services and make effective repairs. It is also on record that warrantee period for said Solar PCU has expired and complainant has made use of same for this period.

14         Thus, from the careful perusal of record, there is no doubt and it cannot be said that Solar PCU in question was totally free from defects and it did not give any problem to its user. As OP-2/Company is the manufacturer of Solar PCU and OP-3 is Service Provider of Company, therefore, it is their sole liability to supply thoroughly checked, defect free systems to its customers and give effective services upto their satisfaction. Action of OP-2 and 3 in not giving effective repairs to the Solar PCU purchased by complainant upto his satisfaction amounts to deficiency in service. On the other hand, OP-1 cannot be held responsible for this, as OP-1 is mere a shopkeeper and is not the maker of Solar PCU in question.

15            In the light of above discussion and keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are fully convinced with the pleadings and evidence led by complainant and therefore, complaint  in hand is hereby allowed against OP-2 and 3 and is dismissed against OP-1. OP-2 and OP-3 are directed to repair the Solar PCU in question upto the satisfaction of complainant. OP-2 and 3 are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- jointly and severally to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him.  Compliance of this order be made within one month of date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 20.04.2017                            Member                President                                          (P Singla)            (Ajit Aggarwal)