BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 30th day of June, 2006
C.C.No.35/2006
1. Dr. Sreenivasa Reddy, Aged 50 years,
Sri . Aswini Hospitals, Gayathri Estates, Kurnool.
2. Dr B. Prameela, Aged 45 years,
Sri Aswini Hospitals,Gayathri Estates, Kurnool.
. . . Complainants.
-Vs-
1. The Managing Director, M/s Phoenix Solar Engineering (P) Ltd,
Ploy No.34, Prahanthi Nagar, I.E., Kukat Pally, Hyderabad.
2. M. Suresh, Agent of M/s Phoenix Solar Engineering (P) Ltd,
40/163, Bangaru pet, Kurnool.
. . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Order in the presence of Sri M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant, Sri B. Chandrudu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.1 called absent set ex-parte, and stood over for consideration till this day the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(As per Sri. K.V.H.Prasad, Hon’ble President)
1. This joint complaint of the complainants is filed under section 11 and 12 of C.P. Act, seeking the refund of Rs.52,540/- as cost of the 500 LPD Solar Water Heating System, Rs.4,000/- towards additional electricity bill spent on account of leakage to the water heating system, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship suffered at the conduct of the opposite party in non attending the defect in the unit and the costs of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that for providing un interrupted water supply to the patients in the complainant’s hospital the complainant No.1 has placed one order with the opposite party No.1 for 300 LPD capacity solar water heating system after being explained of the said solar heating system by the opposite parties in the month of February 2004. In pursuance of said order the opposite party No.1 dispatched one 300 LPD capacity solar water heating system to the complainants on 31-3-2004 collecting its cost of Rs.40,500/- vide invoice No.87/2003-2004 and the said was installed by the opposite party at the complainant’s hospital. As the said unit became insufficient as the hospital is required more quantity of water to the patients the opposite parties on request of the complainant agreed to replace the said 300 LPD capacity solar water heating system with a new 500 LPD capacity solar water heating system on payment of Rs.12,040/- towards the difference cost and on payment of said difference amount the 500 LPD capacity solar water heating system was installed on 27-1-2005 in the hospital of the complainants taking back the earlier supplied 300 LPD capacity solar water heating system. The said solar water heating system it was given a guarantee period of two years from the date of its supply. In the month of November 2005 the said 500 LPD solar water heating system has started leaking of water from two sides and inspite of several requests and reminders of the complainants the opposite parties did not attend it and the opposite party No.2 could not rectify the said defect as it was a manufacturing defect. On account of the defect in system the complainants are constrained to use electricity and thereby incurred an additional expenditure of Rs.1,000/- per month in the electricity bill. The opposite parties did not respond to the letters of the complainants requesting for repairing the defect. The said conduct of deficiency of service of the opposite parties has caused mental agony and hardship to the complainants and the opposite party No.2 at Kurnool being the agent of opposite party No.1 of Hyderabad alleges the jurisdiction of this Forum to entertain the complaint.
3. In pursuance of the receipt of the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainants while the opposite party No.1 remind exparte by abstaining the proceedings the opposite party No.2 caused its appearance to counsel and filed written version denying any of its liability and the alleged facts of the complainants case and there by seeking the dismissal of complaint with costs.
4. In substantiation of the contentions while the complainants side has relied upon the documentary record in Ex.A1 to A16 besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant and replies to the interrogatories exchanged, the opposite party No.2 except causing interrogatories to the complainants affidavit did not place any record.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and there by the liability of the opposite party No.1 to make good of the claim made in the complaint.
6. The Ex.A1 invoice dated 31-3-2004 envisages the purchase of solar heating system of 300 LPD by the complainant from opposite party No.1 for Rs.40,500/- and the said fact remains conclusively proved as it was not rebutted by the opposite party No.1.
7. While the Ex.A2 dated 27-1-2005 envisages the delivery of 500 LPD solar tank with its accessories mentioned there in, the Ex.A3 – way bill indicates its transport to the complainants hospital and Ex.A4 indicates the payment of said difference amount to the opposite party by purchase of a DD in favour of the opposite party No.1 and the Ex.A5 indicates the sending of said difference amount DD by courier under a covering letter in Ex.A6 and these facts remains conclusively proved as finds no rebuttal from the opposite party No.1 against whom only the complainant is seeking the relief in this case.
8. The Ex.A7 and A9 which were sent to the opposite party vide Ex.A8 and A10 and which was acknowledged by the opposite party No.1 vide Ex.A11 envisages the reminders of the complainant requesting the opposite party No.1 to attend the defect of the solar heating system. The above facts being not rebutted by the opposite party No.1, in the absence of any material from the opposite party No.1 as to its response to the above, not only conclusively proves the genuineness of the grievance of the complainants at that solar heating system supplied by the opposite party and the indifferent attitude of the opposite party No.1 in attending the said defect and there by making out the deficiency of service of the opposite party No.1.
9. The Ex.A12 issued by the opposite party No.1 not only indicates the features and other technical data of said solar hot water system and its cost and incidental charges but also the terms and conditions of its guarantee. It gives a guarantee of two years against manufacturing defects. There being any cogent material from the opposite party No.1 to doubt the said defect as of a non-manufacturing one the liability of the opposite party No.1 remains to rectify the said defect as guaranteed under the Ex.A12. Hence, the opposite party No.1 either to rectify the said defect in the said supplied unit so as to get its good and satisfactory performance or else to refund the amount expended by the complainant in having the said unit.
10. The Ex.A13 is an attested xerox copy of the electricity bill for the month of October 2004 pertaining to the complainants hospital consumer service connection No.67203 it shows the consumption of 3444 units and costing the bill to Rs.21,750/- The Ex.A14 is an attested copy of electricity bill for the month of November 2004 pertaining to the complainants consumer service connection No.67203 it shows the consumption of 2680 units of electricity and costing the bill to Rs.16,910/-. The Ex.A15 is an attested copy of electricity bill for the month of October 2005 of the complainants consumer service connection No.67203 showing consumption of 3514 units of electricity and costing the bill to Rs.22,078/-. While the Ex.A13 and A14 were the electricity consumption bills pertaining to the period prior to purchase of 500 LPD solar water heating system the bills in Ex.A15 and A16 pertains to the period subsequent to purchase and installation of 500 LPD solar water heating system and the fluctuation in the cost of the bill is establishing the genuineness in the alleged claim of the complainant at Rs.1,000/- per month in electricity consumption.
11. As there is neither a claim against opposite party No.2 nor any cause of action is alleged against the opposite party No.2 the case is dismissed against opposite party No.2.
12. From the discussions made in supra paras as the deficient service conduct of the opposite party No.1 in attending the defect of supplied solar water heater system as is made out and also there by the liability of the opposite party No.1 not only to refund the investment made by the complainant for having the said unit but also the compensation for mental agony suffered at the deficient and reluctant conduct of the opposite party No.1 the case of the complainant is allowed directing the opposite party No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.52,500/- towards the investment made by the complainant for having the said 500 LPD solar water heating system, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.4,000/- as difference in electricity charges and Rs.5,000/- as costs of this case within a month of the receipt of this order and take back the said defective solar water heating system. In default the opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay the supra stated award amount with 12% interest per annum till realization.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 30th day of June, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the Complainants : Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of Exhibits Marked for the complainant :-
Ex A.1 Invoice of the Solar water dt 31.3.2004.
Ex A.2 Delivery challan dt 27.1.2005.
Ex A.3 Way bill dt 27.1.2005.
Ex A.4 D.D Counter foil.
Ex A. 5 Courier receipt.
Ex A.6 Covering letter dt 17.3.2005.
Ex A.7 Notice caused by complainant No.2 to opposite party No.1 dt 7.1.06.
Ex A.8 Courier receipt.
Ex A.9 Another notice caused by complainant to opposite party No.1.
Ex A.10 Poster receipt.
Ex A.11 Acknowledgement.
Ex A.12 Terms and conditions of supply.
Ex A.13 Electricity bill, dt 1.11.2004.
Ex A.14 Electricity bill, dt 1.12.2004.
Ex A.15 Electricity bill, dt 1.11.2005.
Ex A.16 Electricity bill, dt 1.12.2005.
List of Exhibits Marked for the opposite parties: Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:
1. Sri M. Sivaji Rao, Advocate, Kurnool.
2. Sri B. Chandrudu, Advocate, Kurnool.
3. The Managing Director, M/s Phoenix Solar Engineering (P) Ltd, Ploy No. 34,
Prahanthi Nagar, I.E., Kukat Pally, Hyderabad.
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties on:
