PER DR. S.M. KANTIKAR, MEMBER 1. The Complainant Mr. B.D. Gupta had purchased a solar water heater system from Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, Manager, Koto Trade and Services Pvt. Ltd., Dehradun- the Opposite Party No. 1. It was installed in his house on 10.02.2010 and there was a warranty of one year. He had spent Rs.18,750/- for the purchase of Solar water heater, plus Rs.9,600/- for installation, total being a sum of Rs.28,350/-. However, in the month of May, 2010, the tank of the solar water heater system started leaking from various points. To repair the defect of the tank, the OP-1 sent his employee to the Complainant house, but the employee damaged the insulation of the tank, while examining it and told the Complainant that he cannot repair the tank. After this, the Complainant contacted OP No.-1 and also the Director, Koto House, the OP.-2, who always assured him that the defect will be removed and, in case the defect is not removed, they will replace the solar water heater system. The Complainant furnished a written complaint to OP-1, on 16.06.2010, but of no result. Ultimately, the Complainant purchased a new solar water heater system for Rs.27,000/- and spent an amount of Rs.2,000/- on the purchase of its parts and Rs.1,000/- on labour. Thus, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short, istrict Forum Dehradun and prayed for refund. 2. The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to pay jointly and severally the cost of Solar water heater Rs.22,750/- with 9% interest per annum and to pay Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- as costs. 3. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, the OP filed an appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, tate Commission. Before the State Commission, the Director, Mr. N. C. Agrawal and authorized representative of OP, was also present. 4. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of District Forum by reducing the rate of interest to from 9% p.a. to 6% p.a. and disallowed Rs.2,000/- for mental agony. 5. Against the order of State Commission, this revision petition arose. 6. We have heard both the parties. The Counsel for Petitioner/OP vehemently argued that, the warranty does not cover the breakage due to mishandling, impact or fall of any external object on the said system. Warranty also ceases if the system is shifted/handled by outsiders mechanic. The Complainant/Respondent has signed the invoice no. LS-100/09-10 dated 19.02.2010, wherein he has also accepted the terms and conditions annexed to the said invoice. The counsel for OP, further submitted that grounding and foundation is very important to prevent from wind pressure due to which the system may fall and get damaged. Hence, such work needs highly skilled engineers of the company. The complainant had totally ignored the advice and recommendation given by the representative of OP, thus, violated the terms and conditions of supply. Hence, the warranty was ceased. Despite the termination of warranty, on 09.06.2010, OP sent a mechanic to the complainant house who removed/repaired the defects to entire satisfaction visited of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant served a legal notice to the OP on 30.06.2010 stating therein that the system had been dislocated and had fallen down from the second floor to the first floor due to storm and had been destroyed completely. 7. We have perused Clause No. (vii) and (xi) of the Terms and Conditions of supply, which state that:- (vii) If the system is shifted/handled by outsider mechanic, the warranty will cease. (xi) Due to any substandard accessories, used by customer, the responsibility of damage will be of customers. 8. We have given thoughtful consideration to the entire evidence and documents on file. The OP has not produced any cogent evidence with regard to shifting and mishandling of the solar water heater system by the Complainant. There is no iota of evidence to prove that the complainant had used substandard accessories. It is pertinent to note that both parties admitted that the Solar system was installed in the presence of the company employee. Hence, the entire work, including grounding and foundation, was done, per the requirement for erection and installation of the system. The OP/company employee should have objected to any fault during installation. Hence, without any evidence, OP cannot take the plea that the grounding and foundation work quality was very poor and due to this, the said system had fallen on 23-24.06.2010. OP did not provide proper services to the complainant and it amounts to deficiency. Due to this, the complainant has installed another Solar System and incurred further expenses and mental agony. 9. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the impugned order passed by the State Commission is well a considered one and is without any illegality. The present revision petition is therefore, dismissed, with no order as to costs.