DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 14th day of March, 2023.
Filed on: 17/08/2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C No.384/2022
COMPLAINANT
PV Babu @ Varkey Babu S/o. late Varkey, Pulinattu house, Muvattupuzha-686661.
(Rep. by Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha 686661)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTY
M/s Reecco Energy India Pvt. Ltd. Bldg. No. IV/219, B4, Pala Road, Thodupuzha -685608
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant is owner of a building situated in Velloorkunnam Village, Muvattupuzha. He has been earning his livelihood by means of self-employment by renting out the rooms of the building. While so, the opposite party approached the complainant and made an offer to install a solar power plant in the building within 75 days from the date of the agreement. He had collected Rs. 400000/- (Four lakhs) as advance in two instalments of Rs. 2, 00000/- each on 31.3.2021 and 01.4.2021 respectively. Thereafter by believing the assurance made by the opposite party to install a solar plant in the building so as to reduce the electricity charges the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party on 9.4.2021. But the installation work had not been, started even after the elapse of several months. The complainant approached the office and residence of the opposite party on several occasions. Finally, the opposite party gave a cheque dated 15/10/2021 for Rs. 4 lakhs towards the refund of the advance. But the cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in his account. Again, the complainant contacted the opposite party and requested for refund of the advance amount. Since no positive reply has been received the complainant was compelled to seek refund of the advance amount by the email dated 17.5.2022. But nothing was done by the opposite party to start the work or to refund the advance amount. The complainant was compelled to issue a lawyer notice through his lawyer on 1.7.2022. But in vain. The complainant has been put to severe hardships, financial loss and mental agony due to the reluctance on the part of the opposite party to refund the amount paid towards advance. The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite party to refund of Rs. 4, 00000/- (Four Lakhs only) with interest, to pay Rs. 50000/- for the financial loss, mental agony and hardships suffered by him due to the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party and the cost of litigation.
2. Notice
Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party. The opposite party received the notice but did not file their version. Consequently, the opposite party is set ex-parte.
3). Evidence
The complainant had filed a Proof affidavit and 7 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 and A-7.
Exhibit A-1. Copy of the transaction receipt dated 31.3.2021
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the transaction receipt dated 1.4.2021
Exhibit A-3. Copy of the agreement for installation of solar plant.
Exhibit A-4. Copy of the cheque issued by the opposite party
Exhibit A-5. Copy of the cheque return memo dated 10.11.2021 received from the bank.
Exhibit A-6. Copy of the request dated 17.5.2022 seeking refund of the money.
Exhibit A-7. Copy of the lawyer notice dated 1.7.2022.
4) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, the complaint was filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. As per Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced Copies of the transaction receipts dated 31.3.2021 and 1.4.2021 (Exhibit A-1 and A-2). These documents revealed that the complainant had paid the requisite consideration for the service to the opposite party. Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.
In the above case, the complainant has produced Exhibits A-1 to A-7. All in support of his case. In the present case in hand, the reluctance on the part of the opposite party to refund the money received by him towards advance for the solar plant installation work amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
The complainant who had availed the services of the opposite party were made to suffer due to the deficiency of service on part of the opposite party. The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiency of service on their part.
We have also noticed that Notice was issued from the Commission to the opposite party but did not file their version. Hence the opposite party set ex-parte. But the opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-prate order passed against it.
The opposite party’ conscious failure to file their written versions in spite of their having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite partY. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant. The Hon’ble NC held a similar stance in its order cited 2017(4) CPR page 590 (NC).
It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary and unjustified act of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. Hence this complaint was filed. Despite due service, none appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party, hence, they proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 09/02/2023.
The Opposite Party has inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of Opposite Party in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
1. The Opposite Party shall refund Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) to the Complainant.
2. The Opposite Party shall pay Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) for the financial loss, mental agony and hardships suffered by the complainant due to the unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party.
3. The Opposite Party shall also pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The above-mentioned directions shall be complied with by the Opposite Party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide above (i) shall attract interest @5.5% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt K.P. Liji transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission dated this 14th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence
Exhibit A-1. Copy of the transaction receipt dated 31.3.2021
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the transaction receipt dated 1.4.2021
Exhibit A-3. Copy of the agreement for installation of solar plant.
Exhibit A-4. Copy of the cheque issued by the opposite party
Exhibit A-5. Copy of the cheque return memo dated 10.11.2021 received from the bank.
Exhibit A-6. Copy of the request dated 17.5.2022 seeking refund of the money.
Exhibit A-7. Copy of the lawyer notice dated 1.7.2022.
Opposite party’s evidence
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 384/2022
Order Date: 14/03/2023
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
