D.O.F:07/09/2020
D.O.O:20/03/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.108/2020
Dated this, the 20th day of March 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
K.Rajan,
Rareeram,
Chirappuram, : Complainant
Nileshwar
And
Sasidharan. K.V,
Manager,
Mastermind Impex,
Near Railway Over Bridge, : Opposite Party
Padannakad,
Kanhangad,
Kasaragod- 671328
(Adv. Shamseer.A)
ORDER
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a Sun 10W Solar Light from Opposite PartyNo.1 on 10/01/2019. The Opposite Party offered replacement warranty for 8 to 10 years after sale service. It is installed in his house on 10/01/2019 itself. On 25/03/2020, it suffered damages, requested to repair/ reinstall damaged solar light. Reminded on 08/05/2020 and 20/05/2020 sent letter dated 25/05/2020. The installation is faulty and therefore he suffered damages. The complainant sought reliefs of repair/ replacement / re install the solar light, compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation.
2. The Opposite party filed its written version contending that Opposite Party is the dealer of the product manufactured by Master Mind Impex owned by Opposite Party. Price paid is only Rs.8,000/- plumber/ electrician informed non-availability for fixing in time. The Opposite Party arranged an electrician, installation is done under supervision of the Complainant. No amount is received by Opposite Party for installation of work successfully till 25/03/2020. On 26/03/2020 Opposite Party informed that during night time, due to heavy wind, solar light fell down to interlocked courtyard thereby damaged and hence no replacement warranty for physical damage caused, no deficiency in service. But still on inspection found it non serviceable.Hence, prayed for dismissalof the complaint.
3. The complainant filed chief affidavit and was cross examined as PW1. Ext.A1to A4 documents. Ext.A1 and A2 is the product details. Ext.A3 and A4 details showing three year replacement warranty. The Opposite Party filed IA-117/2021 is for cause production of documents therein by Complainant. The Complainant explained he is in possession of only Ext.A1 to A4.
4. The Opposite Party filed chief affidavit. The Opposite Party produced documents Ext.B1 and B2. Ext.B2 is not accepted since it is not signed by person or authority or even seal of the dealer or manufacturer. The Opposite party examined one witness.
5. Considering the rival contentions of both parties following issues arise for decision in the matter.
a) Whether complainant is entitled to refund of value or replacement of solar light supplied by Opposite Party as per warranty terms?
b) Whether there deficiency in service or negligence from the side of Opposite Party
c) Whether Complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?
All points discussed together for convenience. The grievance of the Complainant is that Opposite Party offered replacement warranty for 8 to 10 years after sales service. But within a period of one and half year the product fell down and damaged. The installation of the light is not done properly and complainant seeks replacement / or repair of the solar light.
6. The Opposite Party cross examined PW1, while cross examining Opposite Party has no case that solar light fell due to any negligence or other acts of the Complainant. Suggestion is that due to heavy rain and wind solar light fell down. It is also suggested that main fence is not fixed and not fixed as required. It is the duty of Opposite Party to confirm fixing of main fence at the time of installation. Another suggestion is that product is not maintained properly. No such case in written version.
7. The Opposite Party examined one witness DW1. He deposed that he installed the solar light on the second floor of house of the Complainant on request made by Opposite party No.1, according to him it is fixed properly and in the ordinary circumstances there is no possibility to fell down. In case of strong wind it is likely to fell down. He denied the suggestion that it is not fixed properly hence fell down.
8. We shall now examine the legally and propriety of seeking relief to replace or refund price of product.
9. The Complainant has no case of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. But the Opposite Party in their version denied that solar light is not serviceable. Thus only remedy is installation of new one. The Opposite Party’s case is that solar light fell down due to strong wind thus act of god force majeara hence no replacement or refund of its price. But fact remains that solar light fell down not due to any negligent act of the Complainant.
10. Ext.B1 shows that company will not undertake any loss, include thunder, earthquake, and natural disaster. The Opposite Party has no case that installation conditions are violated.
11. Thus there is no direct evidence how solar light fell down and caused damages. However, the Complainant issued the solar light for a period of more than 10 year with any complaints. Product warranty is for three year. He is not able to enjoy its benefits for remaining two years of warranty period. Thus Complainant is entitled to refund of portion of its price paid by him. Since solar light is used by him for a period of more than one year, warranty though still therefore two years, solar light is not serviceable it is not advisable to replace the product free of cost. But the Complainant is entitled to refund of portion of its price as per warranty terms and also litigation cost thereof.
12. It is here by ordered that Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards refund of portion of price of solar light to which he is not able to enjoy its benefits even for the full period of warranty. The Opposite Party is not liable to compensate but liable to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation.
13. In the result Complaint is partly allowed the Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) as refund portion of price of the product of covered by warranty as aforesaid. With cost of litigation Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1: Bill
A2: Product details
A3 & A4 are showing three year replacement warranty
B1: Product Manual
B2: Product warranty card
Witness Cross examined
PW1: K.Rajan
DW1: Unnikrishnan
DW2: Sasidharan. K.V
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
