BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PRESENT
SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
SMT. R. SATHI : MEMBER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
C.C. No. 67/2012 Filed on 29.02.2012
Dated: 15.02.2014
Complainant:
V. Thulasidas, former Chairman & Managing Director M/s Air India presently employed as Managing Director, Kannur International Airport, residing at K.S. Road, Poonkulam, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. R. Jagadish Kumar )
Opposite parties:
- Managing Director, M/s Kraft Water Solar Heater Pvt. Ltd., 29/2862, Aditya, Near Gandhi Square, Poonithura, Kochi-682 038.
- P. Kumar, Jotis Enterprises, H.O, Amritha Nagar, Thiruvananthapuram-695 040.
This C.C having been heard on 11.02.2014, the Forum on 15.02.2014 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Complainant purchased a solar water heating system from the 2nd opposite party. 1st opposite party is the manufacturer of the same and the purchase price for the same was Rs. 46,000/-. It was installed at the complainant’s residence. The said system had a warranty for 3 years from the date of installation i.e; 31.07.2009. Therefore the warranty period ends on 30.07.2012. Right from the inception the tank supplied by the opposite parties showed problems, and was replaced twice and additional expenditure was there for the same. After rectification also, the tanks leaked and so a legal notice was issued to both the opposite parties by the complainant claiming reimbursement or replacement. To this notice, 1st opposite party sent a reply stating their willingness to replace the tank or to refund Rs. 40,000/- and they will take back the system. This reply was sent on 14.09.2011. But till now nothing happened and so he approached this Forum for a replacement of the defective solar water heating system or refund of the amount paid.
Notice was sent to the opposite parties from this Forum. They never appeared before this Forum or filed any version. So we proceeded exparte against them.
Points raised for consideration are:-
- Whether allegation of manufacturing defect is proved?
- Reliefs and costs if any.
Complainant filed affidavit along with 3 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P3. This affidavit and documents stand uncontroverted.
Points (i) & (ii):- Complainant filed this petition to get the solar water heating system installed in his residence to be replaced or get back the amount he spent for installing the same. Ext. P1 is the copy of legal notice issued to the opposite parties. Ext. P2 is the acknowledgement cards of the same and Ext. P3 is the reply notice sent by the 1st opposite party. In Ext. P3 1st opposite party admits that the tank was replaced by them once. They expressed their willingness to replace the tank again if the irregularities in the pressure pump connected to the system is rectified. That is to be done by the complainant. If the complainant is not amenable to this suggestion, 1st opposite party agrees through Ext. P3 that they are ready to refund Rs. 40,000/- to the customer and take back the system. Admission by the opposite party itself proves the case of the complainant. So he is excused from taking out an expert opinion to prove the defect in the solar water heating system as envisaged by Consumer Protection Act. Here in Ext. P3, opposite party points out some rectifications from the part of the complainant before replacing the tank. But the complainant had not taken any steps for the same. In the alternative 1st opposite party offered Rs. 40,000/- as refund and ready to take back the system. That letter (Ext. P3) was dated 14.09.2011. The present complaint was filed on 29.02.2012. Till now no refund was done by the opposite party other than what is stated in Ext. P3. So the complainant was dragged to file a complaint before us to get his grievance resolved. Complainant states that the purchase price is Rs. 46,000/-. Since there is no documentary evidence before us to find out what is the actual purchase price of the system, we are accepting the admitted amount offered by the opposite party, i.e; Rs. 40,000/-. Complainant is eligible for interest on that amount from the date of filing this complaint also. This matter can be well settled even before filing this complaint. But opposite parties’ attitude forced the complainant to file this complaint, for which opposite parties are liable to pay the cost of the proceedings also which we fix as Rs. 3,000/-.
In the result, complaint is allowed. Opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant Rs. 40,000/- with 9% interest from the date of filing this complaint. Rs. 3,000/- is ordered as cost of the proceedings. On acceptance of the amount, complainant is directed to hand over the solar water heating system to the opposite parties. This order is to be complied within a month of receipt of the same. After this period, Rs. 40,000/- will carry interest at the rate of 12%.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 15th day of February 2014.
Sd/-
LIJU B. NAIR : MEMBER
Sd/-
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
Sd/-
R. SATHI : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 67/2012
APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:
NIL
II COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:
P1 - Copy of advocate notice dated 08.08.2011 issued by complainant.
P1(a) - Postal receipt
P1(b) - Postal receipt
P2 - Acknowledgement cards (2 Nos.)
P3 - Letter dated 14.09.2011 issued by 1st opposite party.
III OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:
NIL
IV OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:
NIL
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
jb
