IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 17thday of January, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 201/2021 (filed on 15-09-2021)
Petitioner : Mr. Divakaran Mohan Babu,
Kochuparambil,Paingana,
Mundakayam, Kottaym – 686 513.
Vs.
Opposite Party : Renergy Systems India Pvt. Ltd.
Josephine Villa,
AnjengoP.o.
Trivandrum.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
The complaint is filed under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The complainant purchased a solar system (Solar Power Based Device 5KW) from the opposite party by paying Rs.2,85,400/- after deducting the subsidy amount of Rs.80,000/- on 05-09-2018 vide invoice No.065/2018-19. There was a warranty of 5 years for the said solar system. But within 16 months of the installation the same became inactive and upon the complaint lodged by the complainant the inverter was replaced after 11/2 months. Again after 5 months the same has happened and the inverter was replaced again. But from 21st August 2021, the said inverter became inoperative and even after intimating the opposite party several times they did not respond. The opposite party intimated the complainant on 09th September vide an e-mail that they would rectify the inverter if he could send the same. As the complainant had no technical assistance for removing the inverter he could not send it . The previously defective two invertors also are kept back with the complainant. Due to the deficient service of the opposite party, the complainant had to suffer financial loss and other practical difficulties. Moreover he had to pay the electricity charges to K.S.E.B.even after the installation of the solar system spending huge amount. So the complaint is filed for replacement of the solar system with a new one or refund of Rs.2,85,400/- and for cost and compensation.
Even upon receiving notice from this Commission, the opposite party did not appear or file their version.
The complainant adduced evidence through affidavit in lieu of chief examination along with Ext.A1 to A3.
On perusal of pleading and evidence the points to be answered is that whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party which is liable to be compensated.
In the proof affidavit, the complainant has deposed that after the filing of the complaint, the opposite party has replaced the defective inverter with a new one and two defaulted inverters were also taken back. So the complainant is withdrawing the prayer for replacement of the inverter.
The complainant has filed the complaint for compensation from the opposite party for the financial and mental hardships caused to him by the deficient act of the opposite party. The complainant has spent 2,85,400/- for purchasing the solar system which turned out defective repeatedly and the opposite party though replaced it for 2 times was not ready to rectify the defect permanently. After filing the complaint the opposite party has replaced the defective system with a new one and so the complainant has withdrawn his prayer for replacement of solar system and in default refund of money paid. Now the prayer is only for Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.7,230/-, the amount paid to KSEB along with litigation cost.
Here, as the opposite party replaced the defective system the defect of the product is evidently admitted. The said solar system happened to be defective for 3 times within 3 years of purchase. The sale of the defective solar system itself is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Moreover the opposite party did not care to replace the defective inverter on the 3rd time until the complainant approached this Commission. This also shows that the opposite party was reluctant to give proper and satisfactory service to the complainant.
The complainant having spent Rs.2,85,400/- for a defective product and waiting for the rectification of the same for several times interrupting the peaceful and continuous enjoyment of the product. Moreover the complainant had to depend KSEB for the electricity for his household use. For this he had to pay another Rs.7,230/-.
So we find that though the opposite party has replaced the defective system the complainant is eligible for compensation for mental agony and the electricity bill he had to pay. Hence the complaint is allowed.
ORDER
(1) The opposite party shall pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony to the complainant.
(2) The opposite party shall pay Rs.7230/- along with Rs.1500 as litigation cost.
The Order shall be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order. If not complied as directed, the award amounts will carry9% interest from the date of Order till realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her,corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 17thday of January, 2022.
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant
A1 - Copy of invoice
A2 –Copy of warranty
A3 – Copy of demand remittance details from 01-18 to 09-21
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
Senior Superintendent
