Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/99/2016

K. Nageswara Rao, S/o. Late Lakshmaiah Naidu, aged 50 years, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s. Sun Energy Systems India Pvt., Ltd., Rep. By its Authorized Signatory - Opp.Party(s)

D. Reddeppa Reddy

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 01.12.2016

Order Date:11.08.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

FRIDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.99/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

K.Nageswar Rao,

S/o. late. Lakshmaiah Naidu,

Hindu, aged 50 years,

Cultivation,

Residing at:

Jangalapalle (V),

Krishnapuram (P.O),

Pakala Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                                          … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

1.         M/s. Sun Energy Systems India Pvt. Ltd.,

            Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

            # 133/1/B, Phase-II, IDA Cherlapally,

            Hyderabad – 500 051.

 

2.         The Executive Engineer / District Manager,

            NREDPAP,

            # 10-161, Gandhi Road,

            Chittoor – 517 001.

 

3.         The District Collector,

O/o. Collectorate,

Reddigunta,

Chittoor Town & District                                                    …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 26.07.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.D.Reddeppa Reddy, counsel for complainant, and Sri.Mupparapu Balakrishnama Naidu, A.G.P., counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3, and opposite party No.1 remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section–12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant  against the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to exchange the defective equipment with a new one, 2) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and 3) to direct the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint, (no relief is sought against opposite party No.3).  

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  That the complainant being the agriculturist, on believing the assurance given by opposite party No.2, has purchased solar equipment with submersible pumpset from opposite party No.1 on 19.04.2014 for Rs.2,35,750/- under invoice Sl.No.044. The equipment was installed in the bore-well of the complainant. Opposite party No.2 did not release the subsidy amount. Therefore, the complainant has paid entire cost of the equipment.

            3.  The equipment worked only for one month. At that juncture complainant and opposite party No.2, have participated in All India Radio live programme on “Solar Pump sets – Prayojanalu”. The complainant has filed the relevant CD and certificate issued by All India Radio Station Director, Tirupati. One month after installation, the equipment started giving troubles. When the complainant approached opposite parties 1 and 2 and explained the problems, opposite party No.1 assured that he will depute an experienced technician to rectify the defects, but he did not send anybody and the equipment was not rectified. Subsequently, his mango garden was totally damaged due to lack of water supply. Inspite of several personal approaches and phone calls, the opposite parties did not choose to rectify the defects in the equipment. Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice to opposite parties 1 to 3 on 24.12.2014, calling upon the 1^st opposite party to exchange the equipment with new one with good quality. Opposite party No.2 gave reply on 29.12.2014 with false allegations. Hence the complaint.

            4.  Opposite party No.1, remained exparte.

            5.  Opposite party No.2 filed the written version and the same is adopted by opposite party No.3. Paragraphs 1 to 14 of the written version are the denial of parawise allegations in the complaint including cause of action, maintainability of the complaint and jurisdiction etc. Opposite parties 2 and 3 further contended that the complainant never approached opposite party No.2 for subsidy amount for solar pumpset. On the date of installation of pumpset on 19.04.2014, subsidy scheme is not available and the said scheme was started from 12.01.2015 onwards. Opposite parties  2 and 3 are not concerned with the transaction mentioned in the complaint. Therefore, question of deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 does not arise and opposite party No.2 is not at all concerned to release of subsidy. Opposite party No.2 is not a necessary party to the proceedings. The complainant never consulted with opposite party No.2 before purchasing the solar equipment. That the circular dt:12.01.2015, issued by New and Renewable Energy Development Corporation of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, in Ref. NREDCAP/SOLAR PUMPSET/20142845, clearly shows and supports the case of the opposite party with regard to date of deficiency of service and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            6.  In support of his case, complainant filed his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. For the opposite parties R.W.1 filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.B1. Both the parties have filed their written arguments. Heard the oral arguments of both parties.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the complainant is entitled to exchange of his solar equipment

                  with submersible motor?

            (ii)  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party

                  No.1?

            (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?

            (iv)  To what relief?

            8.  Point Nos.(i) and (ii):- The admitted facts are that the complainant has purchased solar equipment with submersible pumpset from opposite party No.1 on 19.04.2014 for Rs.2,35,750/- under Ex.A1 invoice. The equipment was installed in the bore-well of the complainant. That the said equipment was worked for one month, thereafter started giving troubles. It was communicated to opposite party No.1        M/s. Sun Energy Systems India Pvt. Ltd, represented by its authorized signatory at Hyderabad. He has promised that he will depute one experienced technician to rectify the defects in the pumpset, but till date he did not choose to get the pumpset rectified. It is also alleged that opposite party No.2, who assured that subsidy will be given for the said equipment, was also not released, as such complainant was forced to pay the entire cost of Rs.2,35,750/- to opposite party No.1. These allegations are not denied by opposite party No.1, who remained exparte on 02.03.2017 even without making his appearance either personally or through an advocate. The complaint itself clearly shows that no relief is sought against opposite party No.3. Therefore, complaint against opposite party No.3 is liable to be dismissed. Since the opposite party No.1 did not contest the matter, it prima facie appears that he has admitted the complaint allegations. Therefore, he is liable to compensate the claim by virtue of Ex.A1 tax invoice for Rs.2,35,750/- dt:19.04.2014, and Ex.A2 way bill dt:20.04.2014 shows that equipment was purchased from opposite party No.1, and the consignment was consigned by opposite party No.1, and delivered the same to complainant at Jangalapalli village, Pakala mandal, Chittoor District. Pakala mandal comes within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. Ex.A3 is passbook of the complainant issued by Corporation Bank, Damalacheruvu. Inspite of receiving a sum of Rs.2,35,750/- towards cost of the solar equipment with submersible pumpset, opposite party No.1 did not get the defects rectified in the pumpset, though it was brought to the notice of opposite party No.1 on several occasions, and even by notice under Ex.A4, simply promised under Ex.A5 that he will depute an experienced technician but maintained silence without attending on the defective pumpset. Therefore, it is clear that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1, apart from negligence act, and therefore complainant is entitled for exchange of the defective pumpset with a new one in good condition and opposite party No.1 is liable to replace the defective pumpset as prayed for by the complainant. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            9.  Point No.(iii):- in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that complainant has established that he purchased the solar equipment with submersible pumpset and it was installed in the bore-well of the complainant, in his land, as per Patta No.541 shown under Ex.A7. Certificate issued by N.R.Hemalatha, MSc. Horticulture, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District, shows that the complainant Mr.Nageswara Rao, had got mango garden, and the said mango garden was failure and mango trees also got damaged due to non-supply of water in the year 2014-15, that she has personally visited the mango garden of Mr.Nageswar Rao and issued the certificate, which supports the case of the complainant that because of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No.1 in rectifying the defects that arose in the pumpset, he lost the mango garden, till date opposite party No.1did not attend on the defective solar pumpset. Thus the complainant has established that he is entitled for the reliefs sought for to the effect that he is entitled for the replacement of his solar equipment with submersible pumpset that was installed in the bore-well of the complainant by opposite party No.1, and he is also entitled for the compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            10. Point No.(iv):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established his case against the opposite party No.1 only, and there is no case against opposite party No.3 admittedly. The complainant did not seek the relief of subsidy from opposite party No.2. That apart Ex.B1 shows that, as on the date of purchase of the solar equipment by the complainant on 19.04.2014, the subsidy scheme was not in existence and it was introduced only on 12.01.2015. Hence, as on the date of purchase, subsidy scheme was not in existence, complaint is not maintainable against opposite party No.2. Simply, because of opposite party No.2 and complainant have participated in All India Radio live programme, in connection with “Solar Pump sets – Prayojanalu”, that does not mean opposite party No.2 undertaken to release the subsidy amount, that apart for how much amount he is entitled for the subsidy is not mentioned anywhere in the complaint or in evidence affidavit or in written arguments of the complainant, in view of all the above aspects, complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, complaint is allowed against opposite party No.1, directing the opposite party No.1, to replace / exchange the defective equipment with a new one within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and report compliance. The opposite party No.1 further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) to the complainant for causing mental agony to him and for the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. The opposite party No.1 further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of purchase of solar equipment i.e. on 19.04.2014, till realization. The complaint against opposite parties 2 and 3 is hereby dismissed. No costs.                                           

            Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of August, 2017.

 

        Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/-                               

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

witnesses examined on behalf of complainant/s.

 

PW-1: K. Nageswara Rao (Chief Affidavit filed).                             

                                           

witnesses examined on behalf of opposite party/s.

                                                                             

RW-1: C.B. Jagadeeswara Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).                 

                                           

 

            EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s     

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Tax Invoice Dt: 19.04.2014 filed by complainant.
	Original copy of Form of way bill Dt: 20.04.2014 filed by the Complainant.
	Original Bank Pass Book (SB Account No.SB/   01/006158 filed by the Complainant.
	Office copy of Legal Notice Dt: 24.12.2014, 3 postal receipts and 3 acknowledgements filed by the complainant.
	Reply Notice Dt: 29.12.2014 filed by the complainant.
	Certificate in original issued by Horticulturist filed by the complainant. Dt: 20.06.2014.
	Rythu Patta Pass Book stands in the name of complainant filed by the Complainant. Patta No.541 in Original.
	Original C.D. filed by the Complainant.
	Broadcasting Certificate issued by Station Director, All India Radio, Tirupati, in original filed by the Complainant. Dt: 02.06.2014

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Circular issued by NEW AND RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD. In Ref. NREDCAP/Solar Pumpset/2014/2845 (Attested True Copy). Dt: 12.01.2015.

       

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-   

                                                                                                                      President

     

     // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

            

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.