Complaint filed on: 04.04.2013

                                                      Disposed on: 02.03.2017

BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU

 1^ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027       

CC.No.741/2013

DATED THIS THE 02^nd MARCH OF 2017

PRESENT

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER

SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER

Complainant/s: -                           

Sri.M.Lakshminarayanan

S/o Late G.Mahadev

Aged about 61 years

R/at No.26, 25^th Main, J.P.Nagar, I phase,

Bengaluru-560078

By Adv.Sri.B.S.Aravinda Babu

V/s

Opposite party/s:-    

Sunrise Solar Pvt. Ltd.

A Company incorporated

under the provisions of the companies Act 1956,

Having its registered office situated at B-4, Jai Bharath Indl, Estate Yeshwanthpur Bengaluru-560022

Rep. by its Managing Director Mr.A.Palani

By Adv.

Sri.M.Chidananda Murthy

ORDER

Under section 14 of consumer protection Act. 1986.

SRI.H.Y.VASANTHKUMAR, PRESIDENT 

            The Complainant has been alleging the manufacturing defect in the solar water heater of Opposite party company and has been alleging deficiency in service in not repairing/ replacing the same within warranty period and has claimed the relief of:

1. Getting the refund of its value Rs.26,250/- with interest at 18% with compensation of Rs.50,000/-

          2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that he purchased the solar water heater system of 100 LPD capacity on 24.07.12 after verifying the quotations for Rs.26,250/- and the Opposite party supplied and installed the same to his residence on 08.08.12. From the first day it was showing leakage problem from the water tank and he was advised that it would be stopped automatically after few days. On 11.10.12 the engineer of the Opposite party inspected the solar system and took the water tank from his house for repair. He was informed by Opposite party to pay Rs.4,000/- additional amount to take the repaired water heater. It was within the warranty period. No convincing answer was given to him. The demanded additional payments become unwarranted as against the warranty certificate no.530/2012&13. The demanded payment amounts to deficiency in service by the Opposite party. Hence he issued the legal notice dtd.04.02.13 and later filed this complaint.

          3. The Opposite party in his version has denied the allegations made against him contending that the Complainant admittedly committed mistake in getting the installation of the water heater system through other plumber without his knowledge and consent. The said plumber installed it with 3.5kg pressure capacity though it was having the capacity to the extent of 2kg only. He had incurred heavy loss to rectify the damaged system apart from the transportation charges. The Complainant is sole responsible for the leakage as it was installed wrongly. In order to cover lapse on his part cleverly and cunningly put blaming on his part with malafide intention. The Complainant has no locus standi to approach this forum. There is no cause of action. Complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

          4. The Complainant and the Opposite party filed their respective affidavit evidences. Complainant has relied on Ex-A1 to A7 documents. No documents were produced by the Opposite party. Written arguments were filed by both side. Arguments were heard. Perused the records.

          5. The consumer disputes that arise for consideration are as follows:

1. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged manufacturing defect in the solar water heater of Opposite party company ?
2. Whether the Complainant establishes the alleged deficiency in service in not repairing/replacing the same within warranty period ?
3. To what order the parties are entitled ?

6. Answers to the above consumer disputes are as under:

1) Negative

2) Negative

3) As per final order – for the following      

REASONS

          7. Consumer Disputes No.1 & 2: The undisputed facts reveal that after verifying the quotations/Ex-A1 of 2 water heaters of 100 LPD and 200 LPD capacity, he booked and purchased the 100 LPD solar water heater system from the Opposite party company wide Ex-A3 invoice for Rs.26,250/- with its warranty certificate/Ex-A4 no.530/2012-13. It was installed to his house wide certificate/Ex-A2 issued by Opposite party dtd.08.08.12.

          8. It is also undisputed that after the installation, leakage problem developed and it was reported to the Opposite party through e-mails. Such e-mail transactions starting from quotation period were produced in 4 sheets as per Ex-A5. The Complainant got issued the legal notice/Ex-A6 dtd.04.02.13 through RPAD/Ex-A7 alleging that the leakage from the solar water tank started from the first day of installation, could not be rectified by the Opposite party, after it was taken from his house for repairs and the demand made for additional amount of Rs.4,000/- within the warranty period goes against the warranty conditions being unwarranted. He sought refund of the paid amount or the replacement of the solar heater and later he filed this complaint on 04.04.13.

          9. The Opposite party had contended that the Complainant out of 2 different capacity of water heaters shown in Ex-A1 selected and purchased 100 LPD solar water heater but got it installed to his house without his consent and knowledge through plumber of his side, who adopted the power of 3.5kg beyond its limit of 1 to 2 kg. by way of setting the pressure and thereby the said water heater started showing leakage problem.

10. In Ex-A4/warranty no.530/2012-13, the term no.4 says about the exclusions as here under:

a) Repairs or replacements necessitated by catastrophe, misuse, abuse, fault or negligence of the purchaser or other users/third parties generally.

b) Defects or damages due to the product being used in other than its normal and customary manner.

c) Defects of damage arising from improper testing operation, maintenance, reinstallation, adjustment, or any alteration or modification of any kind.

d)…

e)…

          11. In the e-mail dtd.06.12.12 the Opposite party informed that neither the contractor nor the plumber called him at the time of the installation of pressure pump and only on 11.10.12 when engineers and technicians of both sides noticed that it was wrongfully set for 3.5kg without his consent as accepted by the plumber in presence of the contractor over phone at site.

          12. The Complainant had opted the quotation for 100 liters as shown in emails dtd.24.07.12 and accordingly the Opposite party had furnished the offer for both 100 & 200 LPD heaters. The leakage problem was first reported on 11.10.12 and accordingly the Opposite party through technicians of both the sides came to know about the wrong installation with 3kg pressure and took back the system to the factory and sent the email dtd.12.10.12 informing that the rectification can be done on the basis of payment of Rs.2,500/- with transportation charges or can supply new tank for Rs.7,500/- as additional cost.

13. On 13.10.12 the Complainant through email raised the objection that the Opposite party assuring that it was of 3kg capacity supplied 2kg one and raised further objection on 30.10.12 that the demand for the additional amount is in consistence with the terms of the contract and understanding.

          14. The quotations say the rate of Rs.40,425/- for 200 LPD solar water heater and Rs.26,250/- for the disputed 100 LPD solar water heater. The Complainant has not denied the installation of 100 LPD solar water heater by his plumber. He has not denied the applying of pressure of 3.5kg through the said plumber. On his enquiry as per email dtd.24.07.12 shown in Ex-A5, the quotation Ex-A1 was given to the Complainant showing the difference between the said offered 2 water heaters. The Complainant has raised the objection through email dtd.06.11.12 that his plumber Umashankara conveying the Opposite party had installed the system and that the system under pressurized one comes within the minimum pressure of 4kg and that system could not withstood the minimum pressure.

          15. Thereby the Complainant has raised his doubts about the capacity of the purchased water heater. In order to prove the alleged manufacturing defect of that capacity of water heater, he had to provide the needful catalogues of the same company or the different companies in support of his contention. The manufacturing defects cannot be believed unless the cogent expert report is filed. The Complainant who approached the forum had to follow the ingredients of sec.13(1)(c) by producing the alleged defective item or by way of seeking production of the same from the possession of the Opposite party through the orders of this forum. The manufacturing defects are not visible and as such could have obtained the expert report. Without producing the evidence to show that the Complainant or his plumber complied the required conditions during installation of the water heater, the allegations that the supplied water heater itself was of not such quality cannot be accepted. It is not the case of the Complainant that the Opposite party removed the defects in the supplied heater and not repaired it as per his request. The Complainant could have sought for production of the repaired unit itself to establish that it was not upgraded or repaired and the Opposite party has removed the defects only found therein. There was no comparative study reports of repaired unit with 100 LPD new unit, thereby the Complainant has failed to establish the alleged manufacturing defects.

          16. The placed materials are sufficient to show that the Complainant got the unit installed not as per the instruction of the Opposite party but through his own plumber Umashankara. Umashankara could have been examined before the court to prove that he had taken instruction from the Opposite party before installation. Over loading of 3.5kg pressure against existed capacity of 1 to 2kg definitely becomes the reason for the alleged problem. Thereby the rectification of the said problem cannot be carried out against the violation of the terms of the warranty. Thereby the demand for additional amount cannot be termed as illegal. The Complainant becomes liable to pay the repair charges of Rs.2,500/- and to get back the unit.   Hence the alleged deficiency is also not proved against the Opposite party. Accordingly the Consumer Disputes no.1 & 2 both are answered in the negative.

          17. Consumer Dispute No.3: In view of findings of the Consumer Disputes No.1 & 2 the Complainant deserves to get the following:

ORDER

          The Complaint of the Complainant is here by dismissed. No order as to costs.

          Supply free copy of this order to both the parties. 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, typed by her/him and corrected by me, then pronounced in the Open Forum on 2^nd day of March 2017).

Copies of Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Copies of  Documents marked on behalf of Opposite party