COMPLAINT FILED: 28.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 08th AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1206/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.B.Gangadhar,<br /> Aged about 52 years,<br /> S/o Boregowda,<br /> Residing at No.260, <br /> 10th Cross, Telecom Layout,<br /> Vijaynagar,<br /> Bangalore – 560 040.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.Shivaramaiah<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Tata B.P Solar India Limited,<br /> Regd. Office, No.78, <br /> Electronics City, Hosur Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 100.<br /> <br /> Represented by its Manager.<br /> <br /> 2. M/s.A.B Solar Technologies,<br /> No.33/2, 1st Floor, 5th Cross,<br /> Malleswaram, Circle,<br /> Bangalore – 560 003.<br /> <br /> Represented by its Manager.<br /> 3. M/s. A.B.Solar Technologies,<br /> Authorized Dealer,<br /> M/s. Tata B.P Solar India Ltd.,<br /> No.977, Balaji Pride, ITI Layout,<br /> Nagarabavi Outer Ring Road,<br /> Opp.Bescom, Mallathahalli Post,<br /> Bangalore – 560 056.<br /> <br /> Represented by Sri.B.S.Gowda.<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. Sri.B.S.Gowda.<br /> M/s. A.B.Solar Technologies,<br /> Authorized Dealer,<br /> M/s. Tata B.P Solar India Ltd.,<br /> No.126, Vinayaka Layout,<br /> Uttal Road, <br /> Visweswaraiah Layout,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> Advocate for OP.1 – Sri.T.S.Suresh.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to install 4 BP Solar Home Lighting System or refund the cost of the same Rs.26,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant purchased TATA BP Solar water heater System along with Solar Home Lighting System manufactured by OP.1 through its dealers OP.2 to 4 in an Exhibition held at Palace Grounds, Bangalore on 27.12.2006. Complainant paid an advance amount of Rs.10,000/- and for the balance amount he issued the cheque. OP acknowledged the receipt of the same. Thereafter some how OP installed only Solar Water Heater System but failed to install Solar Lighting System in the premises of the complainant in spite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Complainant even got issued the legal notice on 17.01.2008, there was no response. OP.2 to 4 illegally retained the said Rs.26,000/- paid towards the Solar Lightning System for all these days but failed to supply the same as promised. Thus complainant felt both unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Only OP.1 contested the matter. Complainant failed to take necessary steps against OP.3 & 4. Hence complaint against OP.3 & 4 came to be dismissed. OP.2 didn’t file his version and contested the matter. OP.1 filed the version.<br /> <br /> The brief averments as could be seen from the contents of the version filed by the OP.1 is as under.<br /> That there is no privity of contract between OP.1 and the complainant, OP.1 is neither a seller of goods nor a provider of service as contemplated. It is only manufacturer of the said product. Of course OP.2 to 4 are the authorized dealers of the said product. The transaction that has taken place between the complainant and OP.2 to 4 is nothing to do with the OP.1. The grievance if any complainant has to sort out only against OP.2 to 4. The dealership agreement executed in favour of OP.2 to 4 came to be terminated on expiry on 31.03.2007. Under such circumstances no liability lies on the part of the OP.1. Complaint against OP.1 is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP.1. Among these grounds, OP.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP.1 has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP’s?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant purchased Solar Water Heater system, Solar Lighting System under the brand name TATA BP Solar Systems manufactured by OP.1 through its authorized dealers OP.2 to 4 in an exhibition held at Palace Grounds, Bangalore on 27.12.2006. OP.2 to 4 collected Rs.36,400/- towards Solar Water Heater system and Rs.26,000/- towards Solar Home Lighting System. On the date of placement of the order complainant paid an advance of Rs.10,000/- for the balance he issued the cheques which were realized by the OP.2 to 4 and OP.2 to 4 have passed the receipt in that regard. Documents to that effect are produced.<br /> <br /> 7. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that OP.2 to 4 installed only Solar Water Heater system at his residence but failed to install 4 Solar Lighting System as promised under the said invoice of worth Rs.26,000/- in spite of lapse of a more than 3 months from the date of purchase. That is why he made repeated correspondence with the OP’s requesting them to keep up their promise and render their service. It appears OP.2 to 4 turned the deaf ears. Ultimately complainant got issued the legal notice on 17.01.2008. Copy of the legal notice is produced which is served on the OP. Complainant has produced the purchase order, brochure of the product, receipt passed by the OP, Bank pass book to show the realization of a cheque by OP.<br /> <br /> 8. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the above said undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. OP.2 failed to contest the matter to the reasons best known. Of course we find there is a substance in the defence set out by the OP.1 that he being only the manufacturer of the said product when there is no allegation of any defect in the said product, they are not liable to answer the complainant nor pay the compensation as prayed. We find force in the defence of the OP.1 that there is no privity of contract much less neither it is a seller of a goods nor provider of service as contemplated. On going through the entire records and pleadings of the parties, the whole transaction has taken place between complainant and OP.2 to 4.<br /> <br /> 9. OP.2 to 4 have not disputed or denied the facts. Of course complainant having failed to take steps against OP.3 & 4 the complaint came to be dismissed against them but OP.2 didn’t appear and contested the matter. OP.2 to 4 are inter related with each other having common interest in the said business and in the dealership of the product manufactured by the OP.1.<br /> <br /> 10. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case though complainant invested his hard earned money to purchase the Solar Home Lighting system he is unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Though OP.2 to 4 received the said Rs.26,000/- failed to supply and install the said goods thereby accrued the wrongful gain to themselves and caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of his. Here we find the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.2 to 4, as for as OP.1 is concerned complaint appears to be devoid of merits. We are satisfied that the complainant is able to make out the case against OP.2. Hence he is entitled to relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP.2 is directed to install 4 Solar Home Lighting System having brand name TATA BP Solar System at the premises of the complainant within 4 weeks from the date of communication of this order. Failing in which OP.2 is directed to pay Rs.26,000/- the cost of the Solar Lighting System together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from January 2007 till realization and also pay a litigation cost of Rs.2,000/-. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> Complaint against OP.1 is dismissed.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 08th day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />