DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of March, 202.
Filed on: 29/10/2019
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C. No. 395/2019
COMPLAINANT
Aju P.A. S/o Anandan,Paruthayil Puthenpura House, Mudavoor P.O.,
Muvattupuzha -686669
(Rep. by Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha 686661)
Vs.
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. M/s Solgen Energy Pvt. Ltd.,22/314-8, Puthur Grama Panchayath, Kuttanelloor, Thrissur-680014. Represented by its Managing Director.
2. M/s Hykon India Ltd., City memorial Building TA Beerankunju Road, Ernakulam-680013, Represented by its Managing Director.
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President.
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the Complainant purchased a 2 KW off-grid solar power plant on 14.10.2017 for Rs. 2, 85233/- from the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is the service centre of the 1st opposite party. Five years warranty for the batteries and two years warranty for the inverter warranty was provided by the 1st opposite party. The plant was installed by the 1st opposite party on 04.11.2017. While so, the plant became defunct in August 2019. The battery backup was reduced to an abnormally low level of 2 to 3 hours as against the assurance of 24 hours. A complaint was registered with the 2nd opposite party on 5.08.2019. The technician attended to the complaint and informed the complainant that the two batteries supplied along with the plant are defective. Two standby batteries were supplied by them. But no improvement was noticed. In the meantime, the over-voltage problem erupted while restarting the equipment whenever the batteries accumulated sufficient power. Thereby another inverter, aerator, and bulbs were totally damaged and hence suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 35000/-.Again the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties. But nobody attended to the complaint. Subsequently, a lawyer’s notice was served on the 1st opposite party. But no effort was taken by them to rectify the defect of the plant. The failure of the solar plant is due to its manufacturing defect. The complainant has been deprived of the solar plant facility from August 2019 onwards. The reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to rectify the defect of the solar plant within the warranty period amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite parties to refund the price of the plant Rs. 2, 85233/- with interest, to pay Rs.100000/- as compensation for the loss of the inverter facility for a long period and the damage caused to the inverter, aerator, and bulbs due to over-voltage and the cost of litigation.
2. Notice
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice. The first opposite party filed their version. The second opposite party did not file the version. Consequently, the second opposite party is set ex-parte.
3.The version of the first opposite party
The opposite parties responded to the service calls made by the complainant by replacing two numbers batteries on 06.09.2019 and the Inverter card on 23.09.10, which is evident from the service reports submitted by the complainant though the complainant was not fully satisfied with the service provided. To make the solar plant provide full backup, the first opposite party has taken all the batteries for servicing at the Exide service centre on 25.11.2019. Four 150 AH new Exide batteries were provided on the same day, to restore the plant operation. The remaining four batteries were put back into service on 05.12.2019 after servicing. Now the solar power plant is working to its rated capacity with sufficient backup to the full satisfaction of the customer. The opposite parties have rectified the complaints to the full satisfaction of the complainant.
4) Evidence
The complainant had filed a Proof affidavit and 6 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 and A-6.
Exhibit A-1. Copy the retail invoice dated 14.10.2017
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the service report dated 16.08.2019 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Exhibit A-3. Copy of the service report dated 20.08.2019 Exhibit A-4. Copy of the service report dated 05.09.2019 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Exhibit A-5. Copy of the service report dated 06.09.2019 issued by the 1st opposite party.
Exhibit A-6. Office copy of the lawyer notice and the A.D Cards
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, the complaint was filed under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced a copy of the retail invoice dated 14.10.2017 issued by the first opposite party (Exhibit A-1). This document revealed that the complainant had paid the requisite consideration for the service to the opposite parties. Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The complaint is regarding the recurring defect of the solar plant supplied by the opposite parties. The complainant alleged that the reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to rectify the defect of the solar plant within the warranty period amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the plant was installed by the 1st opposite party on 04.11.2017. On August 2019 the plant became defunct. The battery backup was reduced to an abnormally low level of 2 to 3 hours as against the assurance of 24 hours. A complaint was registered with the 2nd opposite party on 5.08.2019. The technician attended to the complaint and informed the complainant that the two batteries supplied along with the plant are defective. Two standby batteries were supplied by them. But no improvement was noticed. The complainant has been deprived of the solar plant facility from August 2019 onwards.
The first opposite party submitted in the version that the solar power plant is working to its rated capacity with sufficient backup to the full satisfaction of the customer. The opposite parties have rectified the complaints to the full satisfaction of the complainant, and the complaint against the opposite parties may be dismissed.
Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar v/s Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Another, Revision Petition No. 3519 of 2006 in Appeal No. 1953 of 2005, Decided On, 25 February 2008, The Honorable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.AIR 2008 (NOC)2260(NCC).
“In this case, from day one onwards the vehicle was found to be defective which was admitted by the dealer himself through his letters. Naturally, encountered with these problems the consumer must have been shell shocked compelling him to knock at the doors of the Consumer Forum. Even before the Consumer Forum in the written submissions filed by OP 1, there is a clear admission of the manufacturing defects. Hence, we are convinced that the vehicle did suffer from manufacturing defects. This is a clear case of res ipsa loquitur i.e. facts speak themselves hence there is no need to refer the vehicle to a third party for giving an opinion.”
In the present case, after a short duration of the purchase of the solar power plant, the problem occurred in it. Though it was rectified yet again the same problem crept up. When the same problem crept up again and again, we are of the view that the solar power plant had some manufacturing defect not capable of being removed and the same was not worthy of use.
The Commission here relied on the service reports dated 16.08.2019, 20.08.2019, 05.09.2019, and 06.09.2019 issued by the opposite parties ‘(Exhibit A-2 to Exhibit A-5) that showed persistent problems in the solar power plant, ever since its purchase. Yet, despite repeated repairs, the problems were not resolved. Hence, the recurring defect is evident from Exhibits A2 to A5. The reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to rectify the defect of the solar plant within the warranty period amounts to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
The Honorable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Nuzhat vs Dee Dee Motors Pvt. Ltd. & Anr, on 3 December 2019, the Commission defined a manufacturing defect as a “defect which persistently comes up and cannot be rectified even after attempts made by the dealer.”
Though the 1st opposite party filed a version no evidence was adduced by them. The opposite parties collected Rs. 2, 85233/- towards the price of the plant as evidenced by Exhibit A-1. The complaint has issued Exhibit A6 lawyer notice to the opposite parties. But in vain.
We have also noticed that Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties 1 and 2 but the second opposite party did not file their version. Hence the second opposite party set ex-parte. The complainant had produced 6 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-6. But the second opposite party did not make any attempt to appear in the case and participate in the above proceedings before this commission and did not make any attempt to set aside the ex-prate order passed against it.
The second opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the second opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the second opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. The opposite parties had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite parties in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
i. The Opposite Parties shall refund Rs. 2,85,233/- (Rupees two lakh eighty five thousand two hundred thirty three only) towards the price of the plant as per Exhibit A-1 invoice to the complainant.
ii. Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) towards compensation for the hardships caused due to the loss of the inverter facility for a long period and for mental agony and physical hardships sustained by the complainant.
iii. The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @ 9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. K.P. Liji transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 30th day of March, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE
Exhibit A-1. Copy the retail invoice dated 14.10.2017
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the service report dated 16.08.2019 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Exhibit A-3. Copy of the service report dated 20.08.2019 Exhibit A-4. Copy of the service report dated 05.09.2019 issued by the 2nd opposite party.
Exhibit A-5. Copy of the service report dated 06.09.2019 issued by the 1st opposite party.
Exhibit A-6. Office copy of the lawyer notice and the A.D Cards
OPPOSITE PARTIES’ EVIDENCE
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 395/2019
Order Date: 30/03/2023
