IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 23/10 DATED 13.04.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant M.R.Ramanath, <br /> S/o Late Ramachandraiah,<br /> R/at D.No.293, 6th Main, Vijayanagara, 2nd Stage, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. Devaraj.A.N., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party Shivakumar, Proprietor, Maakala, <br /> The Solar Energy Systems, D..NO.151/3, Ramavilasa Road, Mysore-570024.<br /> <br /> (By Sri.M.Lokesh, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 21.01.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 05.02.2010<br /> Date of order : 13.04.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTHS 8 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to reinstall solar water heater and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/-. <br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, on 11.02.2009 complainant purchased two solar water heaters, each for Rs.18,500/- along with tubes and panel of solar water heater. On 25.02.2009, installation was done. After 8 months from the date of installation, in the month of October 2009, water started seeping from one of the tanks. It was reported to the opposite party for replacement. On 25.10.2009, opposite party sent technician by name Harsha with Shivakumar. They dismantled the defective solar water heater unit and took away for replacing to new one. Thereafter, in spite of several requests of the complainant, opposite party postponed to install new system. Since, opposite party did not pay need to request, legal notice was issued on 04.12.2009 for which, untenable reply dated 26.12.2009 was sent. The complainant suffered mentally and monetarily. There is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the dealer of the solar water heater system. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the version opposite party has admitted that, the complainant had purchased two solar water heater systems. However, it is contended that, in the notice the complainant did not give invoice details and hence, it was defficult for the opposite party to trace the exact make of the product. It is contend that, plumbing work was got done by the complainant. Opposite party had given specific instructions that an air vent pipe should be provided as per the instructions of the manufacturer. The technician of the opposite party inspected the system and found plumbing was not proper. The water heater was totally compressed and damaged. That was reported to the opposite party. Opposite party directed to remove the water heater for further inspection. The air vent valve used by the complainant was of China made, which is of low quality. It totally blocked due to hard water. Plumbing work was not done as per specification of the manufacturer. The damage caused to the solar water heater is due to improper plumbing work and usage of low quality product. Also, it is contended that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the manufacturer. On these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In support of his case, the complainant has filed his affidavit and certain documents are produced. On the other hand, one Shivakumar has filed his affidavit on behalf of the opposite party and produced certain documents. Written arguments for both the parties are filed. So also, we have heard both the learned advocates for the complainant and the opposite party and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved defect in the solar water heater system purchased from the opposite party and any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and further, that he is entitled to any reliefs?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in the Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Admittedly, the complainant has purchased two solar water heater systems of the particular model and capacity from the opposite party. The complainant alleges that, because one of the tank had defect, water started seeping out and tank has been damaged. The fact that the complainant has purchased the system, is admitted. So also, opposite party has admitted damage to one of the systems.<br /> <br /> 8. It is the contention of the opposite party that, the damage caused is only due to improper plumbing and use of low quality product. It is contended that, for plumbing air vent valve of China made, which is of low quality and not of Tata company was used.<br /> <br /> 9. As noted above, damage to one of the systems is admitted. Hence, taking into consideration of the entire facts, opposite party shall have to make out that it was due to improper plumbing work and usage of low quality products. In this connection, most important aspect that needs to be considered is, the complainant has purchased two units of the same model and quality, and both are installed in the same manner. Thus, it is submitted for the complainant that, when one system is functioning well, if really there was plumbing defect or cause for damage was on account of use of low quality material, another unit also could have damaged, but nothing has happened to it. If this aspect is taken into consideration, the contention of the opposite party cannot be appreciated. Learned advocate for the opposite party vehemently argued that, the air vent value shall have to be fixed above the solar water tank as shown in the manual, but in the case on hand, it is not so etc., In this connection, as noted above, in respect of both units at same level of height air vent valves are fixed. Only one unit has been damaged and another is working well. Hence, if really as contended by the opposite party, because of fixation of air vent valve at lower level than the water tank, then naturally, another unit also could have damaged. Hence, under the circumstances, the explanation offered or the reason assigned by the opposite party, cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> 10. Opposite party further contended that, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the manufacturer. It is true that, the manufacturer as well as dealer, both are jointly and severally liable. But, dealer is also equally liable and responsible. Hence, the contention that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the manufacturer, cannot be accepted.<br /> <br /> 11. It is claimed by the complainant that, in the month of February, system was purchased and in the month of October defect was brought to the notice of the opposite party and the technician inspected the system and dismantled the defective solar water unit and took away it for replacing. Thereafter, in spite of several requests of the complainant, opposite party has not paid any heed. The fact that, the technician of the opposite party has dismantled and took away the system, has been prima-facie established. In 7th paragraph of the version, it is stated that, for further inspection, the system was taken away. But, what the opposite party done thereafter, is nothing on record. Thereafter, about 3 months, the complainant sent legal notice. Then only opposite party replied it that too nearly after more than 20 days. Opposite party has produced inspection report, which is dated 25.02.2010. It is subsequent to the date of lodging of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 12. Considering the entire facts and evidence, it is established that the solar unit in question purchased by the complainant from the opposite party was defective and the opposite party has not repaired the same or replaced it. Hence, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Accordingly, our finding on the above point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 13. Point No. 2:- Considering the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order:- <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is partly allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to repair the solar water heater system in question and returned it in good working/functioning condition to the complainant and install the same where earlier it was installed, within 15 days from the date of this order.<br /> 3. If the opposite party is not able to comply the above order, shall replace the unit to new one of the same model and install the same in working condition within a month from the date of this order.<br /> 4. If opposite party is not able to comply the above both directions, then refund Rs.18,500/- to the complainant within two months from the date of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a.<br /> 5. The opposite party also pay a sum of Rs.2,500/- to the complainant towards cost of the proceedings.<br /> 6. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 13th April 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br />