Karnataka

Bidar

CC/67/2015

T.V. Subbarao - Complainant(s)

Versus

Macro Solar Systems - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. P.M.Deshpande Adv.

28 Sep 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                         C.C.No. 67/2015

 

                                                                                          Date of filing : 31/08/2015

 

                                                                                       Date of disposal : 28/09/2016

 

 

P R E S E N T:-                (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                           (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:           1. T.V. Subbarao,

                                              Age: major, Occ: Private work,

                                              R/o H.No. 8-6-147/198.

                                              Near Govt. Medical college, Bidar.

 

                                          2. T.Arvind, S/o T.V. Subbarao,

                                              Age: major, Occ:Private work,

                                              R/o H.No. 8-6-147/198.

                                              Near Govt. Medical college, Bidar.

 

 

              

 

 

                                           (By Sri. Deshpande P.M., Advocate )

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-                 Macro Solar Systems,

                                             B-960, IDA Balanagar,

                                             Hyderabad-500037. ( Telangana)

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                           ( O.P.By M/s G.B.Raj, & Associates Adv.)

 

                                                

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

              The complainants father and son duo are before us U/s.12 of C.P.Act.1986 alleging defects in the good supplied as specified in section 2( c) (ii) and deficiency of service as specified in section 2 ( c) (iii) of the C.P. Act, 1986 in the part of the sole opposite party.  The gist of the complaint is as follows:-

 

2.              The complainants were in need of 1.5 K.V. solar equipment system together with ancillary equipments like inverter, solar P.V. modules, 150 A.H. batteries etc. and put orders with the opponent to supply the same and to install at the rooftop of the complainants’ homestead.  The cost of the equipments (goods) amounting to Rs. 90,300/- was paid by the complainants on 11-04-2015, following which, the material was transported to Bidar and got installed by the technicians of the opponent.

 

3.            The complainants allege that, after the system was installed, they found it to be non-functional and not fructifying the needs of the complainants whereby, they took up the matter with the opponent.  Their pleas of rectifying the defects being unheeded in spite of legal notice dt.21-08-2015 (Ex.P.4), they have approached this Forum claiming refund of the cost of the equipments together with interest @ 12% p.a., cost and damages @ Rs.1,00,000/- and compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/-.

 

4.                  The complainants, though along with their complaint had filed four documents, as spelled out at the end of this order vide (Ex.P.1 to P.4), at a later stage, on 01-08-2016 had filed three more documents (Receipts of Amar Furnitures and Engineering works dt.15-03-2015 as Ex.P.5, Jaffar Electrical works dt. 05-06-2015 as Ex.P.6, REX Light house dt. 06-06-2015 as Ex.P.7).  The later three documents having their origin and genesis much prior and much after the cause of action, have no relevancy to the present case and hence, we discard them as improper, incompetent, imperfect and irrelevant.  Only the initial four documents vide Ex.P.1 to P.4 would be weighed in a right perspective.

 

5.               The Opponent, after Court notice had put up appearance through counsels of his choice and had filed version denying the allegations of the complainants.  The gist of the version is as follows:-

 

1. That, the Tax invoice issued to the complainants (Ex.P.1) had specified the jurisdiction of the competent Court at Hyderabad.
2. That, the opponent has not received any legal notice from the complainants.
3. That, only on one occasion, the complainants expressing doubts about the function of equipments, technicians from the opponent were deputed to demonstrate the proper operation and otherwise there was no complaint whatsoever from the complainants side.
4. That, the opponent, claiming the complaint is false in one hand, on the other was ready to rectify the defects in the equipments subject to withdrawal of the complaint.
5. That, the complaint is premature.

 

6.               In the instant case, the complainants have filed documents as stated earlier and both sides have led their evidences trying to justify their respective stands.  The parties have filed arguments in writing and were heard them at length.

 

7.         The dispute being highly technical in nature and the opponent claiming the equipments supplied to be perfect in all aspects, this Forum thought it prudent to appoint a Court Commissioner, vide it’s order dt.16-03-2016 and with consent, one Sri. S.M. Shetkar, Advocate was appointed as such to conduct an inspection on 02-04-2016 and report back to the Court.  Warrant was issued to the Commissioners and parties were directed to remain present on the date of inspection.

 

8.                 After initial hiccups of the parties concerned touching the matter of commissioner ultimately, the Court Commissioner filed his report to the Court on 02-05-2016, and his reports are as follows:-

 

                                REPORT OF THE COMMISSIONER

 

1. As per the instructions of the Forum dt.23-04-2016 myself both the parties i.e., the Manager of Respondent by name Solaman, their counsels and a technician by name Amar S/o Khadaji arranged by the Respondent who is completed his Diploma in Electronics having more than 8 years experience were present at the spot( Home of complainant) at 10 30 A.M.
2. The spot is on the roof of 2^nd floor of the house of the complainant where a Zink sheet shed room was fabricated, on the Zink sheet roof of the shed 3 panels of solar of MACRO was fitted with nut bolts and all panels were having interlinked cable wiring, the technician checked the cable which should be connected to the inverter UPS with equipment of Multimeter and told that panels are properly outputting the power.
3.  In the Zink sheet room there was a unit of 3000 VA ( 3 Kw) inverter/UPS and 4 units of Gowell Solar Power HDB GBIT 2000 Batteries were present, which generates power by solar, and there is no any cable wiring connection between the inverter/UPS, Batteries and solar panels.
4. Firstly we have decided to check inverter U/PS and Batteries then we will connect the solar panels connection, then I instructed the technician to connect all the Batteries with the invdrter/UPS, then the technician checked all the batteries with equipment of Multimeter and told that all the batteries have more than 12 volts so we can connect it with inverter/UPS and enquired regarding the old cables to connect, for this the agent of the complainant provided cables which were kept in the polythin cover.  They the technician interconnected all the batteries and connected to inverter/UPS with Batteries, then the inverter U/PS in its screen displayed as Short Serquite, it shows that the inverter/UPS is not working.
5. Then the Respondent told that he had brought one spare inverter/UPS of 3.5 Kw., so that we can connected it and check it, then the technician connected the inverter/UPS with the cables of Batteries, within 10 seconds there was short circuit took place in the spare inverter in the presence of my self both the parties, their counsels, technician, and the agents of complainant then the technician removed the cable connection of inverter/UPS.
6. That, by seeing the short-circuit took place in the spare inverter the technician opined that there should defect in any ofthe Batteries, for this all the 4 Batteries should be sent to the company/Manufacturer for inspection then only we can replace the Batteries and reconnect the inverter/UPS with Batteries.
7. Till we have not connected the cables of solar panels to the inverter/UPS, as there was no inverter in working condition, so I would not able to assess the working conditions of the solar panels.  As on date when I inspected the Solar Power generating unit is not in a working condition.
8. The respondent took back his spare 3.5 KW inverter/UPS which is brought by himself.

 

These are all observations I have made at the time of spot inspection on dated 26-04-2016 and get it note down on the spot and the Report was typed and prepared by my self with sound mind and good senses and without any duress or coercion from any side of the parties, and after pursuing and perfectly understanding the contents hereof, at Bidar, on this the date 2^nd May 20016, I am submitting the Commissioner Report.

 

 

9.           From the Commissioner’s report it is evident that, the system installed is suffering from latent defect, where in short circuit occurred on switching on the system and no fruitful step was undertaken by the opponents to put the same in order.

 

10.            As a corollary to the inspection, both sides agreed for a settlement on 15-06-2016 as is revealed from the order sheet.           On 23-08-2016, the Managing Partner of the opponent was present in the Court and was directed to file an affidavit by 03-09-2016, describing the sequence of events from the date of negotiation till installation of the system.

 

11.                The opponent and his counsel were conspicuously absent on 03-09-2016, in utter defiance of the Court’s direction however time was granted till 17-09-2016, imposing a penalty.  By that date also, the opponent and his counsel remained absent, whereby, we were constrained to post the case for orders to today. The penalty has not been defrayed.  

 

12.        Considering the claims and counters of the parties concerned, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

 

1. Does the Forum lacks  the jurisdiction to try the case?

 

2. Do the complainants prove that, they have an actionable claim against the opponent owing to the supply of defective goods and deficiency of service?

 

3. What order?

 

 

13.          Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

               1. In th negative.

               2. In the affirmative.

               3. As per the final order, for the following:

 

 

                                                                                        

 

:: REASONS ::

 

14.                  The C.P.Act, 1986, is a benevolent legislation of the National parliament to protect the citizenry at large from unscrupulous traders, suppliers, service provider’s exploitation.  Section 3 of the Act specifies that, the law is not in derogation of any other enactment for the time being in force.  Hence it has an all pervading application to protect the consumers from exploitation.  Jurisdiction of the Forum has been specified, interalia vide section 11 ( c) of the Act, wherein the cause of action wholly or in part arises.  The jurisdictional aspect is more or less in confirmity with the provisions of sections 16 to 20 of the C.P.C.

 

15.                 In the instant case, though the orders for the equipment were placed at Hyderabad in Telengana state, the same was transported to Bidar and was installed on the roof top of the house of complainants.  Thereby, part of the cause of action had arisen at Bidar and not withstanding the preliminary objections of the opponent.  WE hold that, this Forum has the competency to try this case and accordingly we answer point no.1 in the negate.

 

16.               From the commissioner’s report extracted hereby above we are of the opinion that, the equipments supplied by the opponent is defective per se and hazardous in nature and thereby, the oppoinent is liable to take back the equipments and reimburse the value to the complainant with interest from the date of placement of the order.

 

17.                 We are also appalled by the defiance attitude of the opponent by absenting himself on 03-09-2016 and non filing the affidavit as directed and not defraying the penalty imposed, wherefore, we are constrained to pass the following:-

 

 

ORDER

 

           

 

1.  The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The  opponent is further directed to reimburse a sum of Rs. 90,300/- as the cost paid for the defective goods together with an interest @ 12% p.a., calculated from the date of payment i.e. 11-04-2015, till the date of realisation.
3. The opponent is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages and a further sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses without demur.
4.  Penalty levied on 03-09-2016  amounting to Rs.1,000/-to be deposited by the opponent in the account of consumers’ legal aid fund separately.
5. It is unrevealed as to how many other consumers have been  provided with defective unsafe goods by the opponent in course of it’s business transactions.  Thereby acting U/s.14 (hb) of the C.P.Act., we direct that, the opponent remits a penalty of Rs.1,00,000/- in the account of this Forum towards the consumers’ legal aid fund.

 

6.  Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

 

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 28^th day of  September-2016 )

 

 

                Sd/-                                                                                  Sd/-

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                  

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Tax invoice of the O.P., dt. 11/04/2015.
2. Ex.P.2- Delivery challan, dt.11-04-2015.
3. Ex.P.3- Way bill, dt. 11-04-2015.
4. Ex.P.4-  Office copy of legal notice.

Ex.P.5- Bills of Amar Furniture & Engineering works, dt.15-03-2015.    Ex.P.6- Bill of Jafar Electrical works, dt.05-06-2015.       7.    Ex.P.7- Bill of REX light house, dt. 06-06-2015.

Discarded at the threshold

 

 Documents produced by the Opponent

 

                          Nil   

 

               Sd/-                                                                                    Sd/-

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

            Member.                                                                President.      

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                         

mv.