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, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER

Friday the 30^th  day of August 2024

CC.  CC 384/2024

Complainant

                        Vargheese.P,

                        Pulparambil (HO),

                        Chevayoor (PO),

                        Kozhikode – 673 017.

Opposite Parties

1.                Midas Group,

Zulu Tower, 2^nd Floor,

Puthukulangara, Thrissur – 680 596.

2.                Aneesh,

     Owner, Midas Group,

Zulu Tower, 2^nd Floor,

Puthukulangara, Thrissur – 680 596.

3.                Jithu,

Project Coordinator,

Midas Group,

 Zulu Tower, 2^nd Floor,

 Puthukulangara, Thrissur – 680 596.

ORDER         

By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN  – PRESIDENT

            This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

2.  The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:

On 02/01/2024 the complainant entered in to an agreement with the opposite parties for installation ofsolar panel in his house at an estimated cost of Rs. 1,86,764/-. It was agreed to complete the work with 25 days. Rs. 5,000/- was paid as advance. On 08/01/2024 the solar panels were brought to his house and a sum of Rs. 1,48,500/- was received by the opposite parties. Thereafter they did not turn up. After repeated calls, they completed the work on 18/01/2024 and received the entire amount as per the agreement. But the connection was done only on 29/04/2024. Now the inverter is having complaint. The complainant had not received the subsidy due to the latches on the part of the opposite party. The warranty documents of the panel and the inverter were not given to him. The opposite parties were not attending the phone calls. Damage was caused to the truss work during the installation. The opposite parties have not taken any steps to redress his grievance. Hence the complaint claiming compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

3. The opposite parties were set ex-parte.
4. The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       1.   Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?

          2.    Reliefs and costs.

5. PW1 was examined and Exts A1 to A3 were marked.
6. Heard.
7. Point No 1:   The complainant has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the invoice, Ext A2 is the copy of the agreement and Ext A3 is the copy of the licence document.
8. The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version and to contest the case. The opposite parties have not adduced 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. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A3. Gross deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties stands proved. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to gross mental agony and inconvenience due to the deficient service of the opposite parties. The complainant deserves to be compensated adequately.  The claim for compensation is Rs. 5,00,000/. The claim appears to be excessive. No evidence was let in by the complainant justifying the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. However, the complainant is entitled to get a reasonable amount as compensation.  Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this regard. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
9. Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;

                 a)  CC.384/2024 is allowed in part.

b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as compensation to the complainant.

c) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 50,000/- shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

d) No order as to costs.

Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 30^th day of August, 2024.

Date of Filing: 26/06/2024

    Sd/                                                                Sd/-                                                               Sd/-                                                                           PRESIDENT                                              MEMBER                                                    MEMBER                                 

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant :

Ext A1 - Copy of the invoice.

Ext A2 -Copy of the agreement.

Ext A3 - Copy of the licence document.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party

NIL

Witnesses for the Complainant

PW1  -  Vargheese.P (Complainant).

Witnesses for the opposite party

NIL                         

      Sd/                                                             Sd/-                                                             Sd/-                                                                   PRESIDENT                                              MEMBER                                                    MEMBER                               

       True Copy,      

                                                                                                               Sd/-

                                                                                                       Assistant Registrar.