By. Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection for an Order directing the opposite parties to replace the damaged battery with a new one and to function the solar lighting system and to pay Rs.6,000/- being cost incurred by the complainant as electricity charge during the non-functioning of solar system and the cost of the proceedings.
2. Brief of the complaint:- The complainant purchased a solar lighting system from the 1st opposite party on 26.05.2009. The company offered 5 years warranty to the system. The system properly worked for 4 years. On 2014 January onwards, the system totally become non-functioning. The complainant contacted the 1st opposite party and asked them to cure the complaint and the damaged battery. The complainant submitted application on 13.03.2014 for that purpose. After two months, the 2nd opposite party contacted the complainant over telephone and asked the address and promised to supply new battery within one week. But the 2nd opposite party did not keep the promise and the complainant got a letter from 2nd opposite party stating that the warranty of battery supplied to the complainant is already over. The complainant must get warranty up to 5 years from the date of installation. The complainant should get warranty up to 25.05.2014. The system failed to function on 2014 January onwards. The opposite parties did not replace the battery and made the system functioning. Aggrieved by this, the complaint is filed.
3. On receipt of complaint, notices were issued to opposite parties and opposite parties appeared before the Forum and filed versions. In the version, opposite party No.1 contented that the company who supplied the equipments is giving warranty to the equipments which is supplied through ANERT in subsidy basis. The warranty card shows the date of starting of warranty to the customers. The 1st opposite party is not producing the equipments and the company who produces the equipments is giving warranty to the product. The 1st opposite party is giving only subsidy to the products as per the direction of State and Central Government. The 1st opposite party never wants to mislead the customers. The 1st opposite party is only an agency through which these equipments are supplied to the customers in subsidy basis. Hence opposite party No.1 is a unnecessary party. In the version, opposite party No.2 stated that the 1st opposite party invited tender on 21.06.2008 for the supply, installation and commissioning of 500 numbers of solar lighting system to all districts towards of Kerala which included 40 number of system in Wayanad district. In the tender specifically it is mentioned that the solar home system including battery will be warrantied for a period of 5 years from the date of supply. In the warranty card, it is clearly mentioned that the warranty for battery is for 5 yeas from the date of supply to ANERT. The complaint received from the complainant shows that the battery is out of warranty and the opposite party No.2 could not take up the service under warranty basis. So the opposite party No.2 is not liable for any remedy.
4. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for consideration:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the
part of opposite parties?
2. Relief and cost.
5. Point No.1:- The complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Ext.A1 to A6. Opposite party No.1 filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW1 and Ext.B1 to B3 is marked. Opposite party No.2 is examined as OPW2 and confronted document is marked as Ext.A7. Ext.B4 to B11 is marked from the side of opposite party No.2. Ext.A2 is the warranty card produced by the complainant. It shows that the warranty for battery is 5 years from the date of supply, wherein the address of service centre is shown as opposite party No.2. In the terms and conditions of warranty in the overleaf of Ext.A2, it is stated as “Warranty period for the products is a fixed period commencing from its date of installation. The date of sales receipts to the customer is the date of installation”. The complainant purchased the equipments including battery is on 26.05.2009. As per Ext.B7(1) document, the company supplied the equipments to opposite party No.1 as per tender is on 07.01.2009. The contention of opposite parties is that the warranty starts from the period of supply ie on 07.01.2009. But as per Ext.A2 document, the warranty starts from the date of sale to the customer ie as on 26.05.2009 and extents to 5 years. So the complainant gets warranty up to 26.05.2014. The Forum is of the opinion that the Warranty should starts from the date of installation. The Ext.A2 document supports the opinion. The battery stopped functioning from 2014 January onwards. So it is within the warranty period and the opposite party No.2 is liable to service the battery. The opposite party No.2 contented that the warranty starts from the date of supply of the equipments to opposite party No.1. The contention of opposite party No.2 is absolutely wrong and the Forum found that it is nothing but unfair trade practice. The failure of opposite party No.2 to service the battery amounts to deficiency of service from the part of opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.1 is nothing to do with the warranty of the equipments. Point No.1 is found accordingly.
6. Point No.2:- Since the Point No.1 is found in favour of complainant, the complainant is entitled to get cost and compensation.
In the result the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite party No.2 is directed to replace the defective battery with a new one and to make the solar lighting system working properly. The opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) as compensation for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of opposite party No.2 and Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand) as cost of the proceedings. The opposite party No.2 shall comply the Order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the whole sum thereafter.
(Contd...5)
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 8th day of July 2015.
Date of Filing:29.12.2014.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/- MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
APPENDIX.
Witness for the complainant:-
PW1. Joseph. T. V. Complainant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Sebastian. Programme Officer, ANERT Kalpetta.
OPW2. Prasannakumar. System Manager, Omega Electronics.
Exhibits for the complainant:
A1. Copy of Acknowledgment of Money. Dt:26.05.2009.
A2. Copy of Warranty Certificate.
A3. Copy of letter. Dt:13.03.2014.
A4. Copy of Letter. Dt:16.09.2014.
A5. Copy of letter. Dt:29.08.2014.
A6. Copy of Letter. Dt:25.09.2014.
A7. Copy of specifications for solar photovoltaic systems page 5.
Exhibits for the opposite parties:-
B1. Copy of letter. Dt:22.03.2014.
B2. Copy of letter. Dt:16.09.2014.
B3. Copy of letter. Dt:19.11.2014.
B4. Copy of Re-tender notice. Dt:21.06.2008.
B5. Copy of specifications for solar photovoltaic systems.
B6. Copy of letter. Dt:31.10.2008.
B7(1). Copy of Invoice. Dt:07.01.2009.
B7(2). Copy of Acceptance Certificate. Dt:09.01.2009.
B8. Copy of Warranty Certificate.
B9. Copy of letter. Dt:22.03.2014.
B10. Copy of letter. Dt:29.08.2014.
B11. Copy of Terms and conditions of Warranty Service.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.
a/-
