BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 231 of 2016
Date of Institution : 9.9.2016
Date of Decision : 26.10.2017
Gurdev Singh aged 30 uears son of Shri Kaka Singh, resident of village Sakta Khera, Tehsil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank, Branch Village Saktakhera, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa through its Branch Manager.
2. Multi Overseas India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.482-483, Industrial Area, Phase I Panchkula through its M.D. Mr. Vikram Hans.
3. Multi Overseas India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.482/483 Industrial Area, Phase I Panchkula through its Manager Mr. Sanjeev Verma.
4. M/s Tata Solar India Ltd. Head Office, Plot No.78, Electronic City, Hospur Road, Bangalore through its Director/ authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI R.L. AHUJA, PRESIDENT.
SMT. RAJNI GOYAT, MEMBER.
SHRI MOHINDER PAUL RATHEE, MEMBER.
Present: Smt. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for complainant.
Ms. M.S. Sethi, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties No.2 to 4 exparte.
ORDER
The case of the complainant in brief is that on 1.8.2013, the complainant purchased a solar system from the opposite party no.1 through opposite party no.2 under the Solar System Scheme for the amount of Rs.14735/-. At that time with the solar system, a plate, two tubes and one battery were given to the complainant. There was warranty of service for the period of five years and in case of modules having manufacturing defects there was warranty for 10 years. It is further averred that total sale price of the said solar system was Rs.14,735/- which was to be paid by the complainant in installments of Rs.250/- per month. The complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3000/- during the period of 19.8.2013 to 12.5.2014 vide his bank account No.82421700009166 branch Sakta Khera, Tehsil Dabwali, Distt. Sirsa. That within two months after the purchase of said solar system, it became out of order. Then complainant approached to the op no.1 and the Ex-Manager of the bank asked the complainant that he will send the solar system for its repairing. The mechanic sent by the op checked the solar system and found that there is defect in the battery of the system. The op no.1 asked the complainant to deposit the said solar system in the bank and they will got repaired the same and after its repairing they will inform the complainant. On this assurance, the complainant deposited the said solar system in the bank. It is further averred that thereafter complainant visited the op no.1 time and again to get back his solar system after its repairing but op no.1 put off the matter on one pretext or the other and now about more than one year has expired but the said solar system is not returned to the complainant. That on 15.9.2015 when complainant alongwith Tarsem Singh son of Gurtej Singh resident of village Sakta Khera met with op no.1 and asked about his solar system, then op no.1 became anger and started to misbehave with the complainant by saying that his solar system will not be repaired and he has no guarantee for the same and also asked to deposit the remaining amount of solar system. The op no.1 badly insulted the complainant in the presence of said Tarsem Singh. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant got served a legal notice dated 26.9.2015 upon the ops but to no effect. Then complainant received an information through RTI from op no.2 vide which the complainant was informed that there is warranty of service for the period of 5 years and also 10 years warranty for the manufacturing defect but the said solar system is deposited with the op no.1 since long time. The ops neither serviced the said solar system nor removed the manufacturing defect of the same. In this way, the ops are unnecessary harassing and humiliating and causing mental agony to the complainant for which he is entitled to compensation of Rs.65,000/- from ops. That previously the complainant filed a suit for mandatory injection against the ops in the Court at Dabwali but same was dismissed as withdrawn and said civil suit has not been decided on merits. The warranty is still in existence. Hence, this complaint.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising certain preliminary objections that earlier the complainant had filed a civil suit titled as Gurdev Singh vs. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank and another in the civil court at Dabwali regarding the same subject matter but that civil suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 29.8.2016 without permission to file fresh litigation and as such the complaint against the answering op is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed legally and factually; that complainant has no cause of action to file this consumer complaint against the answering op as no consumer dispute is made out against the answering op and that complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has not purchased the solar through op no.1. He has purchased the solar from Nine Corporate Energy Pvt. Ltd. 21A, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi and it is wrong to say that he has purchased it from op no.2. It is further submitted that actually M/s TATA BP Solar India Limited, Head Office, Plot No.78, Electronic City, Hospur Road, Bangalore is the manufacturer and the company further authorized following two dealers namely Multi Overseas India Pvt. Ltd., 482-483, Industrial Area 1, Panchkula and Nine Corporate Energy Pvt. Ltd. 21A, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi. However, in this case, the solar system was supplied by Nine Corporate Energy Pvt. Ltd. 21A, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Therefore, the complainant should have made M/s Tata BP Solar Ltd. as op no.2 and Nine Corporate Energy Pvt. Ltd. 21A, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi as op no.3. The complainant has availed a loan of Rs.14,735/- for installation of solar system and purchased one plate, two tubes and one battery for this purpose. He has executed requisite loan documents in favour of op no.1 for availing the loan. After installation of solar system, complainant has given satisfaction letter in the favour of Nine Corporate Energy Pvt. Ltd. 21A, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi. It is further submitted that loan amount of Rs.14,735/- was to be paid by the complainant to op no.1 by way of installments in the sum of Rs.250/- per month. It is correct that complainant has deposited a sum of Rs.3000/- with the answering op from 10.9.2013 to 12.5.2014. After 12.5.2014, the loanee did not deposit any installment inspite of repeated requests of the answering op bank. It is further submitted that as per version of the complainant, the solar system stopped functioning after two months from the date of its purchase i.e. 1.8.2013. Had it been so, the complainant would not have deposited the installments from 10.9.2013 to 12.5.2014. The complainant has made false story so that he may be saved from depositing the remaining installments. The answering op never asked the complainant to deposit the solar system in the bank but he himself thrown the same in the bank. The answering op no.1 will file the suit for recovery against complainant. However, if there is any fault, supplier company is only responsible to repair the same and bank helped the complainant and also approached the supplier of solar system to repair his solar system. Remaining contents of the complaint have also been denied.
3. Opposite parties no.2 to 4 did not appear despite service and therefore, they were proceeded against exparte.
4. The complainant produced his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and also affidavit of Tarsem Singh as Ex.CW2/A, copy of application Ex.C1, copy of information under RTI Act, 2005 Ex.C2, copy of pass book Ex.C3, copy of account ledger inquiry Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, copy of notice Ex.C6, copy of order dated 29.8.2016 Ex.C7 and copy of plaint Ex.C8. On the other hand, op no.1 produced affidavit of Sh. Aakash Jakhar, Manager Ex.R1, copies of loan documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R7, copy of order dated 29.8.2016 Ex.R8 and copy of account ledger inquiry Ex.R9.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.
6. The perusal of the record reveal that complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the facts mentioned in the complaint. He has specifically deposed that he had purchased solar system from opposite party no.1 through op no.2 under the Solar System Scheme for amount of Rs.14,735/- which was got financed from op no.1. The complainant had paid Rs.3000/- towards monthly installments of Rs.250/- each. He has further deposed that solar system got installed by op no.1 was defective and at the asking of op no.1, complainant deposited the said system in the bank but, however, same was not got repaired by the bank nor by ops no.2 to 4, as a result of which solar system is lying in the custody of op no.1 causing loss to the complainant and there is deficiency in service on the part of ops. In support of his case, the complainant produced affidavit of Tarsem Singh Ex.CW2/A and copy of application Ex.C1, copy of information under RTI Act, 2005 Ex.C2, copy of pass book Ex.C3, copy of account ledger inquiry Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, copy of notice Ex.C6, copy of order dated 29.8.2016 Ex.C7 and copy of plaint Ex.C8. On the other hand, opposite party has furnished affidavit of Sh. Aakash Jakhar, Manager as Ex.R1 who has deposed in terms of the defence plea of op no.1. He has specifically deposed that complainant has not purchased solar system through op no.1. The complainant purchased the same from Nine Corporate Energy Pvt. Ltd. 21A, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Actually M/s TATA BP Solar India Limited, Head Office, Plot No.78, Electronic City, Hospur Road, Bangalore is the manufacturer and the company authorized two dealers namely Multi Overseas India Pvt. Ltd., 482-483, Industrial Area 1, Panchkula and Nine Corporate Energy Pvt. Ltd. 21A, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi. In this case, the solar system was supplied by Nine Corporate Energy Pvt. Ltd. 21A, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi. So, the complainant should have made M/s Tata BP Solar Ltd. as op no.2 and Nine Corporate Energy Pvt. Ltd. 21A, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi as op no.3. The complainant has only availed a loan of Rs.14,735/- for installation of solar system and purchased one plate, two tubes and one battery for this purpose and he executed all the requisite loan documents in favour of op no.1 for availing the loan and after installation of solar system, complainant has given satisfaction letter in the favour of Nine Corporate Energy Pvt. Ltd. 21A, Jangpura B, Mathura Road, New Delhi. In support of defence plea, the opposite party has placed on file copies of loan documents as Ex. R2 to Ex.R7.
7. The perusal of the record reveal that opposite parties no.2 to 4 did not contest the present complaint. So the evidence led by complainant against ops no.2 to 4 goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. Further, perusal of the record reveals that complainant has not placed on record any document from which it can be presumed that solar system was purchased from the bank directly. Rather evidence of the parties reveal that complainant had availed loan of Rs.14,735/- from the op bank for purchase of solar system and the complainant had paid Rs.3000/- towards the loan amount though he was required to pay per month installment of Rs.250/- each. The record further reveal that complainant has deposited the solar system with the bank though bank authorities have alleged that complainant had thrown solar system in the premises of the bank but it is proved fact on record that solar system is lying in the custody of the bank. It is also proved fact on record that solar system was very much within warranty as per information supplied by op no.1 under the RTI which is Ex.C2. So, it was obligation of the ops no.2 to 4 to provide proper services to the complainant which they have not provided and it amounts to deficiency in service.
8. In view of the above, we allow this complaint and direct the opposite party no.1 to hand over solar system to the opposite parties no.2 to 4 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order and further ops no.2 to 4 are directed to carry out necessary repairs of the solar system even by replacing any part of the solar system including plate, tubes and battery etc. without any cost with same make and model and in case it is found by the experts of the ops no.2 to 4 that solar system is irreparable, the ops no.2 to 4 will replace the whole solar system with a new one of same make and model without any cost within further period of 15 days. Further in case of non availability of the same make and model of solar system, the opposite parties no.2 to 4 will make refund of Rs.14,735/- i.e. the cost of the solar system to the complainant within further period of 30 days, failing which the ops no.2 to 4 shall be liable to pay interest @9% per annum from the date of filing present complaint till actual payment. We also direct all the ops to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as composite compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Forum. Member Member President,
Dated: 26.10.2017. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
