IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2014.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member-I)
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member-II)
C.C. 68/2014 (Filed on (09.06.2014)
Between:
T.R Viswanathan Nair,
Aswathy,Thelliyoor.P.O.,
Vennikulam.
Pathanamthitta - 689 544. …. Complainant.
And:
1. Surya Agencies,
Chalayikara,
Maramon.P.O.,
Kozhencherry,
Pathanamthitta - 689 549.
2. Tata Power Solar Project Co. Pvt. Ltd.
2nd Floor, Kaippally Mohammedali Tower,
Kaippally Lane, LFC Road,
Kaloor, Kochi – 682 017.
(By Adv. P.A. Hansalah Mohammed) …. Opposite parties.
O R D E R
Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II):
The complainant approached this Forum for getting a relief from the Forum against the opposite parties.
2. The complainant’s case is that he had installed a Rooftop Solar Power Plant as per the statement notification of ANERT. The complainant registered his name and paid Rs.500/- for registration fees. He got Regn.No.SRP/12/09096 and hand book of guide lines. 14 companies were implemented by ANERT for this project. The 2nd opposite party, Tata Power Solar system is one among them. In this system the 1st opposite party, Surya agencies is the dealer of Tata Power Solar system. On 20-05-2013, the 1st opposite party visited the complainant’s site and prepared a report. On the basis of the report, the complainant paid Rs.97,715/- through SBT, Thadiyoor Branch to install the power plant. On 23-07-2013, the 1st opposite party installed the power plant and the complainant had started functioning it on 30-07-2013 with a warranty for 5 years. But it stopped its working on 12-09-2013. The matter was informed to the opposite parties and a complaint was registered through toll free number of 18004198777. Thereafter, the complainant contacted the opposite parties several times. After 84 days from the registration of the complaint, on 06-12-2013 technicians of the opposite party came and checked the system and replaced the energy meter. Again on 14-04-2014, the said system became defective. The matter was intimated to the opposite parties. The complaint was registered as 41822 and they had given directions to the concerned technicians also. But the complainant’s complaint was not rectified. Hence the complainant had given complaints to the 2nd opposite party through telephone. But there was no response.
3. On 03-05-2014, the 1st opposite party’s technicians came and checked the system and told that the complaint is in the inverter card. They agreed to replace the inverter card. But the inverter card was not replaced. Thereafter, the complainant tried to contact the ANERT, Thiruvananthapuram office, Ernakulam branch office and minister’s office through telephone and fax. A written complaint given to the 2nd opposite party’s office at Pathanamthitta. But there was no response. The complaints of the project was occurred during the warranty period. Even after repeated requests by the complainant to the opposite parties for proper repair of the system no action was taken by them. On 13-05-2014, the complainant informed to opposite party that he is going to file a complaint before CDRF. On the same day a technician of the 1st opposite party came and replaced the inverter card and rectified the defects.
4. The complainant’s complaint was rectified but he lost 120 days for non-working of the unit within the warranty period. The complainant has not got any benefits from the said unit due to its complaints. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency in service which caused mental agony and financial loss and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for getting an order for extending warranty period for 120 days more along with compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
5. In this case, opposite parties are exparte.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the complaint, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. Evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A10. After closure of the evidence, complainant was heard.
8. The Point:- The complainant’s allegation is that a system of 10,000/- 1kg watt Rooftop Solar Power Plant installed by the 1st opposite party on 20-05-2013 for a total consideration of Rs.97,715/-. It became defective with in the warranty period. The project was installed with 5 years warranty. The complaints were properly intimated to the opposite parties. But they have not rectified the defects in time with in the warranty period 3 times it became faulty and they repaired the same. Out of 257 days, the complainant lost 120 days due to the non-working of the unit. The above said act of the opposite parties is a clear deficiency of service and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 10 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavits, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A10. Ext.A1 is the copy of the registration certificate and acknowledgement slip dated 2nd May 2013 issued by the 2nd opposite party. The date of registration on 29-04-2013 and the Regn.No.SRP/12/09096. Ext.A2 is the Hand book of 10000 Rooftop Solar Power Plants ( off grid) programme guidelines for beneficiaries. Ext.A3 is the cash bill dated 20-05-2013 for Rs.97,715/- issued by the 2nd opposite party. Ext.A4 is the pre-installation site inspection report. Ext.A5 is the work order. Ext.A6 is the agreement between the complainant and first opposite party Surya Agency. Ext.A7 is the terms and conditions. Ext.A8 is the complaint given to the District Project Officer, ANERT, Pathanamthitta. Ext.A9 is the complaint forwarded to the Electricity Minister of Kerala. Ext.A10 is the complaint forwarded to the Chief Minister of Kerala.
10. On the basis of the available materials on record, it is seen that the complainant had installed a solar power unit through the 2nd opposite party on 20-5-2013 for Rs.97,715/-. As per Exts.A5 and A6, there is 5 years warranty for the Solar Power Unit. The complainant’s allegation is that the said unit became defective during its warranty period. During the warranty period, 3 times it became faulty and they repaired the same. But it was not repaired in time. So the complainant lost 120 days of the warranty period. The allegation of the complainant that the defects occurred during its warranty period has not been rectified in time by the opposite parties in spite of his request for the same. As per Ext.A6 agreement, opposite party provided 5 years warranty and periodic service visits at least once in six months during the warranty period of 5 years. “Any complaint or service call from the customer shall be attended by the agency within 48 hours and problems cleared with in 4 days.” But in this case, the defects of the equipments were not rectified by the opposite parties within 4 days. The complaints of the system was not rectified within time in spit of their warranty which is no doubt a clear deficiency in service from the opposite parties. Therefore, we find that opposite party 1 and 2 have committed deficiency in service to the complainant and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint is allowable.
11. In the result, this complaint is allowed, there by the opposite parties are directed give an extended warranty for 120 days more over and above the normal warranty of 5 years along with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled the additional warranty ordered by this Forum and he is allowed to realize the whole amount with 10% interest from today till the realization of the whole amount.
Declared in the Open Forum on this the 4th day of November, 2014.
(Sd/-)
Sheela Jacob,
(Member - II)
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – I) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : T.R. Viswanathan Nair
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Copy of the registration certificate and
acknowledgement slip dated 2nd May 2013 issued by the
2nd opposite party.
A2 : Hand book of 10000 Rooftop Solar Power Plants (off grid)
programme guidelines for beneficiaries.
A3 : Cash bill dated 20-05-2013 for Rs.97,715/- issued by the
2nd opposite party.
A4 : Pre-installation site inspection report.
A5 : Work order.
A6 : Agreement between the complainant and first opposite
party Surya Agency.
A7 : Terms and conditions.
A8 : Complaint given to the District Project Officer, ANERT,
Pathanamthitta.
A9 : Complaint forwarded to the Electricity Minister of
Kerala.
A10 : Complaint forwarded to the Chief Minister of Kerala.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) T.R Viswanathan Nair, Aswathy,Thelliyoor.P.O.,
Vennikulam, Pathanamthitta - 689 544.
(2) Surya Agencies, Chalayikara, Maramon.P.O.,
Kozhencherry, Pathanamthitta - 689 549.
(3) Tata Power Solar Project Co. Pvt. Ltd., 2nd Floor,
Kaippally Mohammedali Tower, Kaippally Lane, LFC Road,
Kaloor, Kochi – 682 017.
(4) The Stock File.
