COMPLAINT FILED: 31.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 20th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 284/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr. T.S. Venkatesh Murthy,<br /> Aged 75 Years,<br /> Retd. High School Teacher,<br /> #887,19th Cross, <br /> 19th Main Road,<br /> Ideal Home Township,<br /> Rajarajeshwarinagar,<br /> Bangalore – 98.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Stove Craft Pvt. Ltd.,<br /> 58/2, Subramanyapura Road,<br /> Chikkalsandra,<br /> Bangalore – 61.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Navkar Marketing,<br /> #241, 7th Cross, <br /> BSK III Stage, 3rd Phase,<br /> Opp. Khamakya,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) either to replace Gilma Solar Water Heater or refund the cost of the same along with compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant purchased one Gilma solar water heater 200 LPD from OP on 06.01.2008 for a valid consideration of Rs.21,990/-, it carried one year warranty. Complainant was able to use the said water heater for about 10 months, but thereafter it started leaking. The air vent valve was hanging, it was in a dangerous position. Immediately he brought the said defect to the knowledge of the OP, but there was no proper response. In order to protect the interest of inmates of the houses by way of safety temporarily he closed the air vent valve. Though he visited OP for several times, there was no positive response. For no fault of his, he is made to move from pillar to post. Complainant complied all the terms and conditions of user manual, but unfortunately he could not get the expected result. Though he invested his hard earned money, he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Hence he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant has manipulated unauthorisedly the installation and removed the air vent valve without there being any expert’s opinion. Due to the said manipulation it had lead air lock damage and leakage beyond rectification. As and when complainant approached the OP their technicians visited the spot, examined the installation. Out of humanitarian consideration to keep up the good relationship, they are prepared to replace the tank which is leaking subject to complainant bearing 50% cost of the same. Though this fact is intimated to the complainant, he is not ready to bear the said cost. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased one Gilma solar water heater system from OP on 06.01.2008 for a total cost of Rs.21,990/- and the said water heater carried one year warranty. As admitted by the complainant himself he has utilized the said water heater for 10 months without any defect, thereafter it started giving him some trouble. Gilma air vent pipe was in a dangerous position, it was hanging. Immediately he brought the said fact to the notice of the OP, but there was no response. Hence in the better interest of the inmates of the house to avoid the further danger to the life and the property he closed air vent valve, thereafter also OP did not attend to the said defect. Hence he felt the deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that without their knowledge complainant has unauthorisedly manipulated the installation by closing air vent valve, it is dangerous. The removal of the air vent pipe has caused the blockage at air vent point, which has resulted in air lock damage which is beyond the rectification stage. On the close scrutiny of the both oral and documentary evidence, one thing is made clear that for the last 3 months or so the said solar water heater is not functioning because of one or the other reason and the defect. Complainant invested his hard earned money to get the defect free solar water heater, but he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. It is all because of the hostile attitude of the OP. The fact that the said defect was noticed within the warranty period is also not at dispute. But still OP has not rectified the same. Here we find the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. On going through the defence set out by the OP, of course a fair offer is given by the OP contending that the damage caused to the tank which is leaking now is mainly because of bad handling by the complainant. The fact that the complainant closed air vent valve without the notice and permission of the OP is also not at dispute. It is also not at dispute that the blocking of the said air vent point has resulted in air lock damaging the said system, there appears to be some highhandedness or contributory negligence on the part of the complainant also. <br /> <br /> 9. Under such circumstances we find there is a justification in the proposal made by the OP. OP is ready to replace the said tank which is leaking subject to complainant bearing 50% cost of the same. The market price of the said tank is Rs.11,500/-. If the complainant wants that the said solar water heater is to be repaired, naturally he will have to bear the 50% of the cost of the tank which will come to the tune of Rs.5,750/-. Complainant has not disputed the price of the said tank as stated by OP. When the said tank which is leaking can be replaced and when the said installation can be repaired, after detecting the defect, there is no question of replacing the entire system. Having considered all these facts and circumstances of the case, we find the justice will be met by directing the complainant to bear 50% of the cost of the said tank to be replaced and get repaired the solar water heater system. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to replace the leaking tank with a brand new defect free and install it at their cost at the premises of the complainant subject to payment of Rs.5,750/- by the complainant and detect the defect with the other functioning system, rectify the same to the satisfaction of the complainant and make the said Gilma solar water heater functional. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />