BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 7th day of April 2018
Filed on : 05-08-2017
PRESENT:
Shri. Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K. Member.
CC.No. 316/2017
Between
A. Shamsudheen, : Complainant
S/o. Abdul Khader, (By Adv. K.R. Prathish,
Puthanpurayil house, J.R. Associates, 1st floor, Shivadas
Chembakassery kadavu, Towers, Opp. MymoonTheater,
Aluva-683 101. Chittoor road, Ernakulam,Kochi-18)
And
1. PTL Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
II floor,Saniya Building Pumb (Absent)
Junction, Aluva,
Ernakulam-683 101,
rep. by its Manager.
2. Prameesh Thomas,
S/o. Thomas, Board of Director,
PTL Solar Energy Pvt. Ltd.,
Ernakulam,
res. at Muckanikal house,
Kallungal Lane,Aluva
East-683 101.
O R D E R
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
1. Complainant’s case
2. The complainant purchased 4 solar panels of 1000 watts with battery and the inverter with the capacity of 2500 watts and got it mounted on 16-01-2013 through the 1st opposite party, who collected Rs. 1,75,000/- towards the costs and installation charges. The opposite party offered a warranty of 25 years to the modules from the date of purchase and 5 years warranty for the battery, inverter and Solar charge controller . The system stopped its functioning from the next day of its purchase and the complainant informed the 2nd opposite party about the same. The service engineer of the 1st opposites party attended the complaint and repaired it . However, after some days the inverter had stopped functioning. When the defects persisted the opposite party was informed and they demanded the complainant to take annual maintenance contract by paying Rs. 6,000/-. He therefore preferred a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police Aluve, who could not help the complainant. Legal notice issued to the opposite party was not responded. The inverter has not been in a working condition since its purchase on 2013 . The complainant claims refund of the amount spent by him for the installation and Rs. 3,00,000/- towards compensation through this complaint.
3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties who did not appear to contest the matter despite receipt of notice.
4. When the matter came up for complainant’s evidence the complainant filed a proof affidavit and proved Exbt. A1 to A9 documents . Exbt. A1 dated 01-11-2012 is the receipt for payment of Rs. 75,000/- as advance payment for 1 kwat solar home power system to be purchased from the opposite parties. Some of the components of the system was delivered to the complainant on 09-01-2013 as per Exbt. A2 delivery order. Exbt. A3 dated 16-01-2013 is the invoice for the works contract which amounted to be Rs. 1,75,000/- including the costs of materials and installation. Exbt. A4 is the warranty certificate dated 13-01-2013 in respect of system serial number 201301130007. However, Exbt. A3 invoice does not mention any serial number of the product. Exbt. A4 warranty is dated 13-01-2013 and Exbt A3 invoice is dated 16-01-2013 therefore the warranty cannot be construed as a warranty for the product purchased on a subsequent date. Exbt. A5 is a receipt issued by the opposite parties to the complainant for repairing a solar system on 15-01-2014 which has no apparent nexus with the product purchased by the complainant. Exbt. A6 is a complaint given by the complainant before the Sub Inspector of Police, Aluva alleging that the opposite parties had cheated him . The allegation contained in Exbt. A7 notice is that the solar equipment were taken by the opposite parties for repairs and that was not returned to him after repairs. No such case is brought out in the complaint filed by the complainant. Exbt. A8 is a receipt for payment of Rs. 400/- by the opposite party for the purchase of some components of the solar energy system . Exbt. A9 notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party confirms the allegation that the solar power system purchased by the complainant was not working for the last 4 years. If that is so, the complaint is time barred U/s. 24 A of the consumer Protection Act. We find no consistent case for the complainant and the complainant has not proved any of the allegations contained in the complaint by adducing believable evidence. We find no merit in the complaint filed after 4 years from the alleged date of commission of deficiency in service. Issue is found against the complainant.
5. Issue No. ii. Having found issue No. i. against the complainant, we find that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 7th day April 2018
Sd/-
Cherian K. Kuriakose, President.
Sd/-
Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-
Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant's Exhibits
Exbt. A1 : True copy of receipt dt. 01-11-2012
A2 : True copy of delivery order
dt. 09-01-2013
A3 : True copy of invoice for works
contract dt. 16-01-2013
A4 : True copy of warranty certificate
dt. 13-01-2013
A5 : True copy of receipt dt. 15-01-2014
A6 : True copy of letter dt. 23-04-2015
A7 : True copy of letter dt. 25-05-2016.
A8 : True copy of Receipt dt. 18-11-2015
A9 : True copy of 01-03-2017
A10 : True copy of postal receipt
Opposite party's exhibits: : Nil
Depositions
PW1 : A. Shamsudeen
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
