CC Filed on 26.08.2010
Disposed on 07.01.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.
Dated: 07th day of January 2011
PRESENT:
Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.
---
Consumer Complaint No. 165/2010
Between:
Smt. B.A. Bhuvaneshwari, W/o. M. Muniswamy Gowda, Aged about 56 years, R/o 1st B Block, Dharmarayanagara, Kolar – 563 101. (By Advocate Sri. N. Ramachandraiah & others ) | ….Complainant |
V/S Technomax Solar Devices Pvt. Ltd., Registered Office at No. 38/39, Ramakrishnappa Layout, II Main, Geddalahalli, Sanjayanagar, Bangalore – 560 094. Represented by its Manager/ Authorized Person. | ….Opposite Party |
ORDERS
This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to repair/replace the two Solar Water Heating Systems or to return its value of Rs.35,360/- with costs and interest, etc.,
2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:
That the complainant is a resident of Dharmarayanagara of Kolar Town. The complainant intending to purchase two Solar Water Heaters for personal use, arranged loan from Karnataka Bank, Kolar Branch and purchased two 100 LPD Solar Water Heating System from OP by paying Rs.35,360/- and obtained the tax invoice dated 05.06.2006 for the said amount. The OP installed the two water heating systems on 05.06.2006 itself. The OP issued performance guarantee for 5 years in respect of these two systems undertaking that it would replace or repair the units or parts thereof, if the working of the units is below the performance as specified on free of cost within 15 days from the date of complaint. The required performance by the systems was heating 100 LPD water upto 60 degree celsius in case there is sunshine between 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. The capacity of each system was 100 LPD.
It is alleged that subsequent to the installation of the systems in the residential house of complainant, the complainant noticed leakage in drum and blockage in flat plate collector and that both the units were not giving specified or expected hot water and the complainant made several requests to OP and finally wrote a written letter on 25.03.2010 through RPAD apprising the above facts and to attend the defects or to replace the systems, but there was no response from the OP though the said letter was duly served on it. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint on 26.08.2010 alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP.
3. OP remained absent though served with notice issued by this Forum. Postal acknowledgement of service dated 02.11.2010 is returned to this Forum. On the acknowledgement of service there is rubber stamp of OP and initial of some employee. Therefore we held that the service of notice on OP was sufficient. No one appeared on behalf of OP. No version is filed on behalf of it.
4. The complainant filed her affidavit in support of the allegations made in the complaint. She also produced the required documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for the complainant.
5. The following points arise for our consideration:
Point No.1: Whether the complainant proves that there
was deficiency in service on the part of OP?
Point No.2: If so, to which reliefs the complainant is
entitled to?
Point No.3: To what order?
6. After considering the records and the submissions of the complainant our findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1: The complainant has produced copies of tax invoice dated 05.06.2006 for having paid Rs.35,360/- and she has also filed copy of installation certificate dated 05.06.2006 and also copy of performance guarantee of the same date issued by OP. She also produced copy of the notice dated 25.03.2010 addressed to OP requesting to repair or to replace the system as the systems supplied were not working properly. The copy of postal acknowledgement of service produced shows that the said notice dated 25.03.2010 was served on the OP. The notice sent by this Forum was also served but the OP remained absent. The perusal of these documents along with allegations made in the complaint and the averments made in the affidavit by way of evidence filed by complainant, establish that OP did not turn up for repair or replacing the units evenafter intimating that the performance by them was not to the expected mark. The performance guarantee dated 05.06.2006 shows that the guarantee was for 5 years from the date of installation and the defects should be attended within 15 days from the date of receipt of the complaint. The OP clearly violated this undertaking given at the time of sale of the units. Hence Point No.1 is held in Affirmative.
Point No.2: The two units were installed on 05.06.2006. The performance guarantee period is 5 years from the date of installation. The complainant issued notice dated 25.03.2010 for the first time. In the notice she stated that earlier orally she had intimated the defects in the system. But there was no other intimation in writing to OP regarding the defects. Therefore it appears that for some years the installations were working properly and the performance might not be to the expected mark, from last 5-6 months earlier to the complaint. It may not be true that the units were found defective from the date of installation itself. The OP is bound to replace or repair the units or parts thereof free of cost, if it is found that the working of the units were below the expected performance as specified in the undertaking letter within 5 years from the date of installation and such repair or replacing should be within 15 days from the date of receipt of the complaint. From the averments made in the complaint it cannot be clearly estimated to what extent the performance was below the expected rate. Considering the length of use of the units by the complainant and its defect from last few months we think in case the OP fails to effect the replacement or repair of units, a sum of Rs.20,000/- may be awarded as compensation. It cannot be doubted that the OP is under an obligation to repair or replace the parts to brings the units to reach the expected performance within the guarantee period. Hence Point No.2 is held accordingly.
Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. OP is directed to replace or repair the two Solar Water Heating Systems supplied to complainant or its parts thereof to bring them to reach the expected performance specified in guarantee letter dated 05.06.2006 on free of cost within 45 days from the date of this order. If the OP commits default in carrying out the replacement or repair as ordered within the time specified, it shall pay Rs.20,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the said amount from the date of order till the date of payment.
Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 07th day of January 2011.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
