DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT : Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB: PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LLB, FIE: MEMBER
Friday the 16th day of June 2023
CC No. 152/2020
Complainant
Shibin M,
S/o Sivadasan
Nellikode (P.O),
Kozhikode-673 604.
Opposite Party
1. V Premji,
Manjeeram, Puthoormadam,
Pantheerankavu (PO),
Kozhikode – 641 019.
2. PAE Renievable Pvt Ltd,
20/1 (36), Betta Chambers,
4th Cross 5th Chain,
Chemperpett, Bangalore – 560 018.
Corrected as:
PAE Renewables Pvt Ltd,
69th , Tardeo Road, Aryanagar,
Tulsuwadi, Tardeo, Mumbai,
Behined Gimar Building, Maharashtra,
Pin -400 034.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
On 16-07-2014 the complainant installed roof-top solar panel in his house through the opposite parties. It was having a warranty of five years. After 3 years, the solar panel began to show minor complaints. Though it was informed to the first opposite party, he did not consider the same. Thereafter on 21-06-2019, the second opposite party was also informed and demanded replacement of the panel and battery. The second opposite party informed that they would send an inverter through courier service. But later it was understood that the second opposite party was cheating him.
- The solar panel sold and installed by the opposite parties is a substandard one. The after sales service is also poor. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to replace the solar panel with a new one or in the alternative, refund Rs.95,238/-, being the amount spent by the complainant for installing the same. In addition to the above, compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- is also claimed from the opposite parties.
- The opposite parties were set ex-parte.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are :
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked.
- Heard.
- Point No.1– The complainant has approached this Commission alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The specific allegation is that the solar panel installed by the opposite parties in the house of the complainant was substandard one and there was neglect on their part to address the concerns of the complainant with regard to the solar panel.
- PW1 has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the application form dated 08-11-2013 for 1KW roof-top solar power plant of ANERT, Thiruvananthapuram, Ext.A2 is the tax invoice dated 24-06-2014 issued by the second opposite party, Ext.A3 is the letter dated 14-03-2014 issued by ANERT, Ext A4 is the acknowledgement slip dated 04-03-2014, Ext.A5 is the warranty card, Ext.A6 is the owner’s manual, Ext.A7 is the print out of the e-mail communication dated 30-06-2014 and Ext.A8 is the call list
- The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version. The opposite parties have not produced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. Ext.A5 shows that the warranty period is 5 years. The complaint to the product arose during the warranty period. The neglect of the opposite parties to repair / service the product and that too during the warranty period amounts to gross deficiency of service. The case of the complainant regarding deficiency of service stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A8. Since the complainant failed to prove that the product is having any inherent manufacturing defect by placing on record any technical/expert report, the prayer for replacement of the product or refund of the price cannot be allowed. However, the opposite parties are bound to repair the solar panel and make it in a sound working condition. It goes without saying that the act of the opposite parties have resulted in mental agony, hardship and inconvenience to the complainant, for which, he is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs.10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case.
- Point No.2 : In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows:
- CC 152/2020 is allowed in part.
- The opposite parties are hereby directed to repair /service the solar panel installed in the house of the complainant and make it in a sound working condition. It is made clear that the complainant shall not be required to pay any charge for the repairs.
- The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony, inconvenience and hardship suffered.
- The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order.
- No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this the 16th day of June 2023.
Date of Filing: 04-08-2020.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext A1 - Application form dated 08-11-2013 for 1KW roof-top solar power plant of ANERT, Thiruvananthapuram.
Ext.A2 - Tax invoice dated 24-06-2014 issued by the second opposite party.
Ext.A3 - Letter dated 14-03-2014 issued by ANERT.
Ext A4 - Acknowledgement slip dated 04-03-2014.
Ext.A5 - Warranty card.
Ext.A6 - Owner’s manual.
Ext.A7 - Print out of the e-mail communication dated 30-06-2014.
Ext.A8 - Call list.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
Nil
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Shibin M
Witnesses for the opposite parties
Nil
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True Copy
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
