IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of December, 2023
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 138/2023 (Filed on 11/05/2023)
Complainant : Louis Joseph,
Thannichuvattil,
Sreekandamangalam P.O.
Athirampuzha, Kottayam
Pin - 686562
Vs.
Opposite party : (1) V-Guard Solar & Interios …
HGQC + 6 CW, TDN Bharath
Company, Palace Road,
Vayaskara, Kottayam – 686001.
(2) Soura Natural Energy solutions
India Pvt. Ltd.
X, 126 G 1st Floor,
SNDP Building NH Junction,
Chirangara Koratty,
Chalakudy, Thrissur – 680309
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. Sathianarayanan)
O R D E R
Sri. Manulal V.S. President
This complaint was filed under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and stood over to this date for consideration and this Commission passed the following order.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite party. Upon receipt of notice from this commission opposite party appeared before the commission and field version.
The case of the complainant is that he had purchased a solar panel from the second opposite party through the first opposite party. At the time of the purchase the opposite parties made the complainant to believe that the electricity connection is not necessary. Within three years from the date of purchase the solar panel showed several complaints. The opposite parties replaced an extra box stating that the board of the panel was become defective. When the defect occurred after that the opposite parties changed two batteries of the panel. Even after that the solar panel did not work properly. When the technician from the exide battery company inspected the solar panel it was informed that only lour battery is necessary to work system properly, however the opposite parties installed eight batteries to the system. According to the complainant the opposite parties are bound to rectify the solar panel system as a defect free condition within the warranty period of three years which was offered by the opposite parties. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievance.
The complainant has not filed any affidavit or documents. It is found that though the complainant has raised allegations against the opposite parties, he has not adduced any evidence by way of affidavit or documents to substantiate his case against the opposite parties, despite giving sufficient opportunities. As the complainant was continuously absent, notice was issued from this Commission to the complainant to appear before this Commission on 28/11/23. The notice was duly served to the Complainant on 17-11-2023. As the complainant has not filed an affidavit or documents to substantiate his allegations, we find that the complainant miserably failed to establish his case against the opposite parties. In the above circumstances we find that this is a fit case to be dismissed. In the result the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of December, 2023
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
By Order
Assistant Registrar
