By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an Order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.6,000/- towards the eligible subsidy to the complainant, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of the proceedings.
2. Complaint in brief:- On 27.01.2017, one representative of opposite party’s institution approached the complainant and offered that if 200 ltr Solar water heater is installed there, a subsidy of Rs.6,000/- by Anert will be made available to him. Believing the offer made by the representative, the complainant gave order for installing a solar water heater with cost of Rs.29,500/- and transportation cost of Rs.500/-. The representative offered that the subsidy will be available within one month from the date of installation. The representative also got filled the subsidy application from the complainant. On 01.02.2017, one Vijayan from opposite party’s institution installed the water heater at the house of complainant and payment is made on the same day through bank account. Thereafter, the complainant enquired many times regarding the subsidy amount but not made available if so far. The complainant on 07.09.2017, approached the Anert office directly and got information that the subsidy application of complainant is not received there so far. The act of opposite party is clear deficiency of service. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party and the opposite part appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the opposite party contented that the allegations against the opposite party in the complaint are false. The opposite party never gave any subsidy offer to the complainant at all. The complainant never visited the shop of opposite party for this purpose. The opposite party admitted that the subsidy application given by the complainant through one Vijayan had been submitted to the Anert office by the opposite party and the Anert office had verified the application. It is the duty of Anert office to allow the timely application for subsidy. There is no deficiency of service from the part of opposite party.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?
2. Relief and Cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 and Ext.A2. The opposite party also filed proof affidavit and the opposite party is examined as OPW1 and documents are marked as Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.A1 is the Carbon copy of State Bank of Tranvancore RTGS/NEFT application form dated 01.02.2017 showing that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was given to the High Tech Power Solution owned by the opposite party towards the purchase price of Solar Water heater. Ext.A2 is the copy of Order form dated 27.01.2017. Ext.B1 is the copy of Solar Water Heater scheme and its implementation guidelines. Ext.B2 is the photo of Solar Water Heater. The case of complainant is that the opposite party’s representative motivated him to install one solar water heater by offering Rs.6,000/- subsidy. Being attracted by the offer, the complainant had paid Rs.30,000/- to the opposite party and installed the system. But so far, he did not get the subsidy due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party. The opposite party in his version had admitted that the he had received the subsidy application through one Vijayan and had submitted it in the office of Anert in right time. The opposite party never denied in his version that this Vijayan is not his Agent. There is no whisper regarding this Vijayan in the version of opposite party especially when there is an allegation in the complainant that this Vijayan is the Agent of opposite party. The opposite party never produced any documents to show that the subsidy application is submitted in time at the office of Anert. The complainant stated in the complaint that he had got information from Anert that the subsidy application of complainant is not so far submitted there. When there is such an allegation from the side of complaint, the burden is upon the opposite party to prove that he had submitted the subsidy application in time in the office of Anert. On perusal, it is found that the complainant had paid the purchase price to the opposite party and the opposite party’s representative installed the same at the house of complainant. Opposite party’s representative collected the subsidy application from the complainant and handed over to opposite party for further action. The opposite party admitted that he had received the application and had submitted it in Anert. The Forum is of the opinion that it is the bounden duty of opposite party to enquire about the process of subsidy application at Anert Office by follow up work and to see that the subsidy is made available to the complainant. But that is not done in this case. Therefore, on an overall evaluation of the evidences and records, the Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of opposite party in dealing with the matter. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rupees Six Thousand) to the complainant towards eligible subsidy. The opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party is directed to comply the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest from the whole sum.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 21st day of November 2018.
Date of Filing: 11.09.2017.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/- PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:
PW1. Unni Nair. Agriculture.
Witness for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Roby Chacko. Business.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. RTGS/NEFT Application Form. Dt:01.02.2017.
A2. Order Form. Dt:27.01.2017.
Exhibits for the opposite Party.
B1. Copy of Solar Water Heater Scheme and its implementation guidelines. Dt:03.12.2016.
B2. Photo of Solar Water Heater.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
//By Order//
Sd/-
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,
CDRF, WAYANAD.
