Kerala

Kollam

CC/147/2023

Vidyadharan.K, - Complainant(s)

Versus

ORB Energy Private Ltd, - Opp.Party(s)

30 Oct 2024

ORDER

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Railway Station Road
Karbala Junction
Kollam-691001
Kerala.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/147/2023
( Date of Filing : 17 Apr 2023 )
 
1. Vidyadharan.K,
Sreenarayanam, Panappetty,Poruvazhy.P.O,SasthamKotta -690520,Kollam.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ORB Energy Private Ltd,
95 Digital Park Road,2nd Stage, Yeswanthpura, Bengaluru,Pin-560022,India.
2. ORB Energy Private Ltd,
Represented by Vice President operations,M/s. ORB Energy Private Ltd, Bengaluru.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. S.K.SREELA PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 30 Oct 2024
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

                                                    C.C.No. 147/2023

PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

                                                     ORDER DATED:   30.10.2024

BETWEEN

Vidyadharan K.,

Sreenarayanam, Panappetty,

Poruvazhy P.O., Sasthamkotta 690520, Kollam.                              :    Complainant

AND

  1. ORB Energy Pvt.Ltd.,,
  1.  Digital Park Road, 2nd Stage, Yeswanthpura,

Bengaluru 560 022.

(By Adv.Santhoshkumar  R.)

  1. ORB Energy Pvt.Ltd., Rep.by Vice President operations,

          M/s ORB Energy Pvt.Ltd., Bengaluru.                                            :      Opposite parties

(By Adv.Santhoshkumar  R.)

ORDER

Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

            This complaint is filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  

The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant installed a Solar Power Plant from the opposite parties and after the purchase, the said solar plant became defective and complainant approached the opposite parties but they were not amenable to settle the matter and resolve the grievance of the complaint.  So in the circumstances complainant filed a complaint before this Commission as C.C. 238/2022 and in the meanwhile the case was posted for mediation and a settlement  was arrived  at directing the opposite parties to give six months extended warranty to the complainant.  The opposite parties agreed with the direction of the Commission.  On that basis the representative of the opposite parties appeared before the Commission and assured the Invertor of the Solar Plant will be rectified as soon as possible.  Thereafter the opposite parties rectified the Invertor and a six months warranty was also given to the complainant’s Invertor of the Solar Plant.  But after a period of 3 months, on 03.03.2023, the system again became faulty and complainant communicated this matter to the technician namely Vishnu on 04.03.32023 and a complaint was registered on ORB bearing complaint No.53124.  On 10.03.2023 a technician deputed by Mr. Vishnu had checked the System and found that the 4 batteries were not in a working condition.  The complainant who is a senior citizen had to face much difficulty due to the lack of electricity.  The complainant had several times informed the defect of the Solar System to the opposite party and also told them there is an order from the Commission that 6 months warranty should be provided to the Solar Invertor of the complainant.  At that time, they demanded the order from the court.  Complainant suffered seriously due to the negligent act of the opposite parties and sustained mental agony and financial loss.  The opposite party has a bounden duty to rectify the defect of the Solar Invertor battery and to provide the warranty arrived at the time of settlement before the Commission.  In the circumstances complainant has filed this complaint before this Commission to redress his grievances.

Opposite parties ORB Energy Pvt. Ltd. filed version resisting the averments in the complaint and contends that the present petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The subject matter of the complaint has already been decided by this Hon’ble Commission and arrived at in a settlement.  If the complainant having any problem with that settlement agreement, he can file either an appeal or an execution petition.  The intention of the complainant is to grab extra advantage from the opposite parties.  The opposite parties have performed the terms of the settlement in CC No.238/2022.  Present petition is not sustainable one.  Resjudicata affects this petition.  The opposite parties further contend that it is true that the opposite parties performed all the part of the settlement terms on 03.12.2022.  The complainant has purchased Solectric 3000 with 1kVA (48V, 150Ah) Anert system which has been invoiced on 17.05.2017.  Maximum warranty provided to the above said system was 5 years from the date of purchase.  The warranty period expires on 17.05.2022.  2nd opposite party is always customer friendly and maintains cordial relationship with its customers.  No delay caused to any customers from the side of 2nd opposite party in service-related problems.  The company rendered excellent customer service solved every problem during these periods.  It is true that a complaint No.50194 dated 9th May 2022 was registered with regard to the 1KW power one inverter, the company sent advance replacement and closed the complaint in time.  It is true that the complainant has registered another complaint No.53124 dated 4th March 2023 regarding nonfunctioning of the replaced inverter.  The technician went there and resolved the problem.  The complainant is insisting for a new battery.  Unfortunately, there was no complaint seen in the battery at the time of inspection.  The opposite parties further contend that there is no gross deficiency in service from the part of the company.  Company is working as per the rules and regulations and under the instruction and advice of ANERT.  There is no chance for mental agony and loss caused to the complainant.  The complainant searching for bye pass method to cheat the company by filing this petition before this Hon’ble Commission.  The complainant is causing trouble to the company for grabbing new system from the opposite parties.  The opposite parties have no liability to compensate the complainant for his hardships and mental agony.  There is absolutely no cause of action for the complaint and the cause of action shown is wrong and imaginary and trying to grab benefits from the opposite parties by suppressing the real facts of the case.  So, the opposite parties plead to dismiss the complaint with the compensatory cost.

Complainant filed affidavit and the evidence on the side of the complainant consists of documentary evidence of Exhibits P1 to P7.  Opposite parties filed affidavit and had no documentary evidence.  Heard the complainant.  Opposite parties were absent; hence their part was taken as heard.

In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

  1. Whether the Solectric ANERT system purchased from the opposite parties are having any manufacturing defect so as to get it replaced by a new one?
  2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
  3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation?
  4. Reliefs and Costs?

Points 1 to 4: The complainant installed a Solar Power Plant from the opposite parties, but the system became faulty soon after. Attempts to resolve the issue directly with the opposite parties were unsuccessful, leading the complainant to file a complaint before the Commission (C.C. 238/2022). During mediation, a settlement was reached, directing the opposite parties to provide an additional six-month warranty. The opposite parties agreed, rectified the inverter, and issued the warranty. However, after three months, on 03.03.2023, the system failed again. The complainant, a senior citizen, reported the defect on 04.03.2023, and an inspection revealed four faulty batteries. Despite multiple communications, the opposite parties failed to honor the Commission’s warranty directive, causing the complainant mental distress and financial loss. Thus, the complainant has approached the Commission once more to address these grievances.

ORB Energy Pvt. Ltd., the opposite parties, contend that the current complaint is not maintainable, as a settlement was already reached in C.C. No. 238/2022. They argue that if the complainant has any issues with the settlement, the appropriate recourse would be to file an appeal or execution petition. ORB claims it has fulfilled all settlement terms, including timely service and replacement of components under warranty, which expired on 17.05.2022. They deny any deficiency in service, alleging instead that the complainant seeks unwarranted compensation by misrepresenting facts. ORB requests dismissal of the complaint with compensatory costs.

This Commission has considered the complaint filed by the senior citizen complainant regarding the Solar Power Plant purchased from ORB Energy Pvt. Ltd. on 17.05.2017. It is noted that the warranty for the system was five years, expiring on 17.05.2022. The Commission finds that, the previous case (C.C. 238/2022) was disposed of as not pressed, no terms of settlement were specified. After examining the facts, the Commission finds that the current complaint is maintainable and rejects the opposite party’s argument on res judicata, noting that the order in C.C. 238/2022 was disposed of without explicit settlement terms recorded. The complainant, a senior citizen, purchased a Solectric ANERT system with a five-year warranty on 17.05.2017. During this period, the system became defective, prompting the filing of C.C. 238/2022.

The Commission has evaluated all relevant evidence and found that the solar system purchased by the complainant from the opposite parties, ORB Energy Pvt. Ltd., became defective within the stipulated warranty period. Despite the complainant's attempts to seek repair or replacement from the opposite parties, they failed to address the defects in the system adequately. This failure to remedy the issues constitutes a deficiency in service on the part of ORB Energy. The solar power plant, including its inverter, was found to be defective during the warranty period. Since the defect arose within this timeframe, ORB Energy bore the responsibility to either repair the system effectively or provide a suitable replacement. This obligation forms the basis of the warranty’s protective terms, ensuring consumers are not left with a malfunctioning product within the guaranteed operational period. The opposite parties did not fulfill their service obligations despite the warranty coverage and despite the complainant repeatedly approaching them to address the defects. A “deficiency in service” implies a failure to meet the standard of care and obligation expected from the service provider. Here, ORB Energy’s lack of response, as noted by the Commission, not only breached the contractual terms of the warranty but also their duty to provide post-sale support. The complainant, a senior citizen residing in a rural area, endured mental stress and financial loss due to the system's repeated failures and ORB Energy’s inadequate response. The system was intended to mitigate frequent power outages, making it an essential utility for the complainant’s household. The failure to rectify the issues, therefore, resulted in significant inconvenience, distress, and a loss of investment for the complainant.

The Commission emphasizes that the failure to repair or replace the defective system within the warranty period not only demonstrates a breach of the implied warranty terms but also shows neglect towards consumer rights. It is particularly important that ORB Energy knew of the defects yet did not take effective measures to restore the system’s functionality.

The complainant has experienced significant difficulties due to repeated failures of the solar system and inverter, despite a six-month extended warranty offered as a resolution. The technician's findings confirmed that the batteries were faulty. The opposite party admitted to previous complaints regarding the inverter and acknowledged the defective nature of the system provided. A settlement led to a directive for an additional six-month warranty and defect rectification, but the system failed again after three months. The opposite party acknowledges these facts in parts of their response.

Despite filing a version and proof affidavit, the opposite parties did not present evidence to support their claims, failing to establish that the issues were not due to manufacturing defects. The affidavit of the complainant stands unchallenged.

In light of the evidence, it is found that the solar system and inverter became defective within the warranty period and were not adequately repaired or replaced leading to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  

In the result, the complaint is allowed in the interest of justice. The opposite parties are directed to substitute the defective solar system with a brand-new system, including battery and inverter of equivalent value and specification, or refund the price after deducting any applicable subsidy. The opposite parties are to pay Rs. 10,000 as compensation for the mental agony and financial loss incurred by the complainant due to their deficiency in service. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.5,000 as the costs of these proceedings. The opposite parties shall comply with these directives within 45 days of receiving this order failing which the complainant can initiate execution proceedings.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 30th day of  October 2024.                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                       Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

                                                                                   Forwarded/by Order                              

 

     Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Document marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1    : Photograph of ORB Energy

Ext.P2                     : Photograph

Ext.P2(a) : Faulty Battery

Ext.P3                     : Copy of Whatsapp messages

Ext.P4                     : Commission order

Ext.P5                     : Copy of service report

Ext.P6                     : Copy of service report

Ext.P7                     :  Photograph

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite parties:-Nil                                                                                                     Sd/-

                                                                                                                   

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. S.K.SREELA]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. STANLY HAROLD]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.