DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 48 of 2014 Date of Institution: 12.02.2014/19.02.14 Date of Decision: 09.11.2015.
Sat Narain s/o Sh. Radhey Shyam, R/o Bhokarka, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
- Branch Manager, Sarv Haryana Gramin Bank Lokra, Tehsil Pataudi, District Gurgaon (Old name: Gurgaon Gramin Bank, Lokra).
- Manager, Nine Corporate Energy Pvt. Ltd authorized partner TATA BP Solar India Ltd, 4/21A, Jangpura-B, New Delhi-14.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. R.P.Singh, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. P.R.Yadav, Adv for the opposite party No.1
OP-2 exparte
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant purchased Solar Home Light from OP-2 after obtaining loan from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.27,500/-Since its installation the battery of the Solar Home Light system was not giving proper back-up and in this regard he requested the opposite parties either to replace the same or repair it but of no use. Thus, the opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant. The complainant prayed that the opposite parties be directed to replace the Solar Home Light defect free or to refund its price with interest. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 OP-1 in its written reply has alleged that OP-1 only sanctioned the loan of Rs.27,500/- to the complainant to purchase solar system which was installed by OP-2 and after receipt of the complaint OP-2 sent engineer and there was no defect found in the solar system and the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention as he has not paid the outstanding dues. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1.
3 OP-2 in its written reply has alleged that the Solar system purchased by the complainant was functioning properly and the complaint of the complainant was duly attended by the engineer of OP-2 and for the last one year no complaint has been made by the complainant and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.
Later on, opposite party no.2 failed to turn up before this Forum and thus, was proceeded exparte on 25.11.2014.
4 We have heard the parties and perused the record available on file carefully.
5 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that the Solar Home Light purchased by the complainant from OP-2 was defective as its battery was not giving proper back up since its installation and in this regard he made several complaints to the OPs but the defect in the system could not be rectified and thus, he prayed for refund of the price of the solar system or replacement of the same.
6 However, as per the contention of OP-1, the complainant availed the loan for purchase of solar system which was installed by OP-2 and after the receipt of the complaint, OP-2 sent engineer and there was no defect and the complainant has filed the present complaint with malafide intention as he has not paid the outstanding dues.
7 As per the contention of OP-2, the Solar system was functioning properly and the complaint of the complainant was duly attended by the engineer of OP-2 and there was no deficiency in service on their part. This Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction because OP-2 has got its office at Delhi and there is no branch in Gurgaon and as such the jurisdiction of this Forum was excluded.
8 After going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence placed on file it emerges that complainant has impleaded OP-1 with malafide intention only to file the present complaint before this Forum because the defect if any has taken place in Solar system which was installed by OP-2 and the complaint was made to OP-2 regarding the alleged defect. There is nothing on the file in order to come to the conclusion that OP-1 was in any way connected with OP-2 except that OP-1 had sanctioned the loan amount in favour of the complainant for purchase of Solar system to be supplied by OP-2 and as such the cause of action, if any, arose against the OP-2 and OP-1 has unnecessary been impleaded as OP-1. Therefore, the complaint is to be filed at Delhi where OP-2 carries on business and from whom complainant has purchased the Solar system. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint was maintainable before District Consumer Forum at Delhi and not before this Forum as OP-1 has been unnecessary made as OP1 and thus, the complaint is hereby dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum having jurisdiction.
The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
09.11.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
