BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.388 of 2015

Date of Instt. 04.09.2015

Date of Decision : 29.09.2016

Kulwant Singh aged about 35 years son of Santokh Singh, R/o Village Baghpur, PS Hariana, District Hoshiarpur.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.Jasvir Singh proprietor Eurpeon and India Solar System complete power system, Gurunanak Nagar Kaki Pind, Dakcha Road, Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.

2.Harinder Pal Singh son of Sadhu Singh, proprietor H.M. Solar Enterprises, New Grain Market, Kanak Mandi, Hoshiarpur.

3.Director Manager Su-Kam Power System Limited, Service Centre, 196-C, (Basement), Udyog Bihar, Phase-VI, Sector-37, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana (India).

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of The Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Bhupinder Singh (President)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: None for the complainant.

Sh.Surinder Singh Adv., counsel for OP No.3.

Ops No.1 & 2 exparte.

Order

Bhupinder Singh (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of 'The Consumer Protection Act' against the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) on the averments that the complainant purchased Su-Kam Solar System from OP No.1 vide invoice No.12 dated 20.9.2014. Solar system was installed by OP No.1. The complainant submitted that the solar system did not provide satisfactory service and he made complaints to Ops No.1 & 2. Resultantly, service centre of Su-kam Company i.e. OP No.3 got registered the complaint FSR No.310775, Book No.6216 dated 13.10.2014. The technical staff of OP No.3 repaired the solar system. However, after a few days, the plant again got failure. Again the complainant approached OP No.3 through Ops No.1 & 2 and got registered the complaint No.582923 dated 5.3.2015. Again OP No.3 repaired the solar system but thereafter again the solar system was defective and the complainant approached OP No.3 vide field service report dated 23.5.2015. This time the engineer of OP No.3 checked the solar system but they did not repair the same. The complainant submitted that the solar system is not working properly and the OP failed to repair the same. On such averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the Ops to refund the amount of solar system i.e. Rs.18,000/-. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared through counsel and filed a written reply, pleaded that the solar system of the complainant is quite satisfactorily. However, there were some minor complaints i.e. complaint No.310775 dated 13.10.2014 vide which card of solar system was replaced free of cost. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.3 after three months vide complaint No.582923 dated 5.3.2015. The solar system was checked and it was reported that due to cloudy weather the system was not properly charged. However, the solar system was OK. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP No.3 vide complaint No.583669 dated 23.5.2015. The solar system was checked and no defect in the system was found and it was working OK. Thereafter, the complainant did not approach the OP with any complaint in the solar system

3. Notice of this complaint was given to the OPs No.1 & 2 but nobody has turned-up despite service and as such they were proceeded against exparte.

4. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavits Ex.CA and Ex.CB alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OP3/1A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP3/1 to Ex.OP3/5 and closed evidence.

6. We have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties, minutely gone through the record and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of Ld. counsels for the parties.

7. From the record i.e. pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that the complainant purchased Su-Kam Solar System from OP No.1 vide invoice No.12 dated 20.9.2014 Ex.C1. Solar system was installed by OP No.1. The complainant submitted that the solar system did not provide satisfactory service and he made complaints to Ops No.1 & 2. Resultantly, service centre of Su-kam Company i.e. OP No.3 got registered the complaint FSR No.310775, Book No.6216 dated 13.10.2014 Ex.C2. The technical staff of OP No.3 repaired the solar system. However, after a few days, the plant again got failure. Again the complainant approached OP No.3 through Ops No.1 & 2 and got registered the complaint No.582923 dated 5.3.2015 Ex.C3. Again OP No.3 repaired the solar system but thereafter again the solar system was defective and the complainant approached OP No.3 vide field service report dated 23.5.2015 Ex.C4. This time the engineer of OP No.3 checked the solar system but they did not repair the same. The complainant submitted that the solar system is not working properly and the OP failed to repair the same. Therefore, there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs qua the complainant.

8. Whereas the case of the OP No.3 is that the solar system of the complainant is quite satisfactory. However, there were some minor complaints i.e. complaint No.310775 dated 13.10.2014 Ex.OP3/2 vide which card of solar system was replaced free of cost. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.3 after three months vide complaint No.582923 dated 5.3.2015, field service report is Ex.OP3/3. The solar system was checked and it was reported that due to cloudy weather the system was not properly charged. However, the solar system was OK. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP No.3 vide complaint No.583669 dated 23.5.2015, service report of which is Ex.OP3/4. The solar system was checked and no defect in the system was found and it was working OK. Thereafter, the complainant did not approach the OP with any complaint in the solar system and he filed the present complaint on 4.9.2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of about one year. Learned counsel for the OP No.3 submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.3 qua the complainant.

9. From the entire above discussion, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant purchased the solar system from OP No.1 which was installed at the premises of the complainant as per invoice dated 20.9.2014 Ex.C1 on 20.9.2014. The complainant approached OP No.3, authorized service centre of Su-kam Company at Gurgaon whose branch office is situated at Jalandhar with complaint of some defect in the solar system on 13.10.2014 and the OP No.3 vide field service report Ex.C2 replaced the card free of cost. Thereafter, the solar system worked properly for about five months and the complainant thereafter approached OP No.3 on 5.3.2015 and the OP No.3 vide field service report dated 5.3.2015 Ex.C3 checked the solar system and found that the system was not properly charged due to cloudy weather, otherwise the system was working OK as is evident from the report Ex.C3. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the OP No.3 vide complaint dated 23.5.2015 and the OP No.3 checked the solar system of the complainant and found that there is no defect in the system and it was working properly in OK condition as is evident from the field service report produced by the complainant himself Ex.C4. The complainant could not point out any inherent or manufacturing defect in the solar system nor the counsel for the complainant turned-up to point out any other defect in the solar system. Whereas the OP No.3 has fully proved on record that whenever the complainant approached OP No.3, they removed the defect in the solar system, if any and it was working properly. The solar system was purchased on 20.9.2014 and the present complaint has been filed by complainant on 4.9.2015 i.e. after a lapse of a period of about one year. As the complainant could not point out any defect in the solar system which is not repairable and whenever the complainant approached the OP No.3 with any defect in the solar system, OP No.3 rectified the same, therefore, we hold that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.3 qua the complainant. The complaint is, therefore, without merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of cost, under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Bhupinder Singh

29.09.2016 Member President