BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Thursday, 20th day of April 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 02 / 2017
Siddavaram Subrahmanyam, S/o Late Krishnaiah,
aged about 79 years, Resident of D.No. 39/349-4,
3rd Road, Omsanthi Nagar, Kadapa,
President of Sri Mandagiri Saneeswara Swamy Temple,
Kanumalopalli, YSR Kadapa District. ………… Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Proprietor, Fortune Solar & Pure Water Solutions (Upstairs),
Opp. to Sub-Station, Near Apsara Theatre,
Sankarapuram, Kadapa – 516 002.
2. The Managing Director, Fortune Solar System,
24th floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus,
Dr. Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram,
West Bangalore – 560055. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 13-4-2017 in the presence of Complainant as in person and O.P.1 called absent and set exparte on 30-3-2017 and case against O.P.2 withdrawn on 01-3-2017 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs. 72,408/- towards cost of solar system, to pay Rs. 20,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards expenses of this complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the Complainant has purchased solar street light poles 3 in quantity, Panel mounting structures 3 in quantity, light mounting structures 5 in quantity, Battery box 3 in quantity, Batteries 100 ah 2 in quantity, Batteries 80 ah one, Luminaries @ 24 w special 5 in quantity, solar panels 74 w/p one and Solar panels 100 w/p 2 in quantity as per invoice dt. 20-6-2016 for an amount of Rs. 72,408/- after discount @ 35% on the gross cost of Rs. 1,03,700/- from O.P.1 and O.P1 fixed solar system to Sri Saneeswaraswamy Temple, Kanumalopalli, YSR District on 2-7-2016. The above solar system fixed items have a warranty of two years period commencing from 2-7-2016 warranting that the equipment will give best performance and if any defect is found the same will be rectified and if not rectified equipment will be replaced with new one without charge from the purchaser. While so the equipment started giving trouble from the day one itself and the same was intimated to O.P.1 and the service engineer from the company came tried to rectify the defects on 9-9-2016, but could not rectified and went away on 30-9-2016, he again came and replaced with solar luminaries rectifying the defects. Again on 17-10-2016 the solar system stopped working and the same was informed to the Opposite parties. O.P.1 technician came on 19-11-2016 verified and went away without doing any service. On 21-11-2106 the Complainant requested O.P.1 to replace the equipment but not replaced the same. The solar equipment stopped working from 17-10-2016. Hence, the Opposite parties caused much inconvenience to the temple as the solar system was completely failed. Notice has been issued to the Opposite parties to replace solar system fixed and O.P.1 received the notice on 24-11-2016 and the notice of O.P.2 returned (unserved). Due to deficiency in service by the Opposite parties the Complainant underwent mental agony and torture. Hence, the Complainant is entitled to recover Rs. 72,408/- towards cost of solar system, Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, harassment and strain and Rs. 5,000/- towards legal expenses. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3. O.P.1 not filed written version and remained exparte 30-3-2017.
4. Complaint against O.P.2 has been withdrawn by the Complainant by filing memo on 01-3-2017.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.1 as prayed by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed against the O.P.1?
- To what relief?
6. No oral evidence has been placed, but on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A4 documents are marked in support of his case and filed his written arguments.
7. Heard arguments of Complainant and considered written arguments, the documents filed by the Complainant.
8. Point Nos. 1 & 2. These two points are connected to one another, hence, they have taken up together for discussion.
9. It is contended by the Complainant that the solar system supplied by O.P.1 has two years warranty but the trouble came to the system within few days after its purchase on 20-6-2016 and inspite of requests the problems of the solar system could not be rectified and thus there is deficiency in service by the O.P.1. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for refund of amount of Rs. 72,408/- + mental agony of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.
10. The Complainant filed Ex. A1 to A4 to prove that he purchased solar system from O.P.1 on 20-6-2016 and it has been fixed on 2-7-2016 and trouble arose and not rectified subsequently. It is also his case that the solar system fixed by O.P.1 has two years warranty from the date of its fixation as per the tax invoice dt. 20-6-2106. We have carefully perused the tax invoice filed by the Complainant marked as Ex. A1. The said invoice Ex. A1 does not contain a term for condition that the solar system supplied to the Complainant and fixed has two years warranty either to replace or to refund the cost of the system. As seen from Ex. A1 that there are three conditions mentioned in column terms and conditions viz., 1) Goods once sold will not be taken back, 2) Payment within due date otherwise 21% interest will be charged and 3) Subject to Bangalore jurisdiction. Except these three terms and conditions no other conditions are mentioned much less warranty period of two years from the date of fixation by the solar system sold to the Complainant. The other documents filed by the Complainant is office copy of notice dt. 23-11-2016, acknowledgement by O.P.1 and returned cover sent to O.P.2. O.P.2 is the Managing Director of solar system said to have been supplied by the O.P.1 is the proprietor of the branch at Kadapa. The Complainant has withdrawn the case against O.P.2 who is the manufacturer or Managing Director of solar system sold to the Complainant. O.P.1 is only a branch office or retailer. As per tax invoice Ex. A1 there is no guarantee or warrantee given by either manufacturer or dealer to replace the solar system supplied, if not properly functioned or refund the cost to its purchaser. Therefore, the contention of Complainant that the solar system supplied to him is defective one and has two years warranty either to replace the system or to refund the cost of the equipment. Even as per the contention of Complainant when the system failed the service engineer of the Opposite parties came and attended their problem and rectified the mistake but again stopped the functioning of system. So it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.1. If at all any problem arose the same has to be brought to the notice of O.P.1 and get services done by him as there is no warranty or guarantee given as per tax invoice. Therefore, we see no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.1 in this case to refund the amount as claimed by the Complainant.
11. The Complainant though referred citations consumer law today 2013 part – 3, page Nos. 586, 384, 586, 541 and 389 but the above citations were not produced before this forum for perusal.
12. After going through the material placed on record and considering the submissions by Complainant we hold that the Complainant is not entitled for the reliefs and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, points 1 & 2 are answered in favour of the complainant.
13. Point No. 3. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 20th day of April 2017
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 Original tax invoice dt. 20-6-2016.
Ex. A2 Legal notice ct. 23-11-2016 issued by the Complainant to Opposite
parties.
Ex. A3 Acknowledgement card notice received by O.P.1.
Ex. A4 Returned postal envelop notice cover sent to the O.P.2.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Siddavaram Subrahmanyam, S/o Late Krishnaiah, Resident of
D.No. 39/349-4, 3rd Road, Omsanthi Nagar, Kadapa, President of
Sri Mandagiri Saneeswara Swamy Temple, Kanumalopalli, YSR
Kadapa District.
2) The Proprietor, Fortune Solar & Pure Water Solutions (Upstairs),
Opp. to Sub-Station, Near Apsara Theatre, Sankarapuram,
Kadapa – 516 002.
3) The Managing Director, Fortune Solar System, 24th floor, World
Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway Campus, Dr. Rajkumar Road,
Malleshwaram, West Bangalore – 560055
B.V.P
