First Appeal No. 100 of 2014. Case: Him Solar and Gases Pvt. Ltd. Vs Santosh Singh. Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 100 of 2014 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: H.S. Rangra, Advocate and For Respondents: Aman Parth Sharma, Advocate and Vijay Arora, Advocate |
| Judges | Surjit Singh, J. (President) and Prem Chauhan, Member |
| Issue | Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12 |
| Citation | III (2014) CPJ 47 (HP) |
| Judgement Date | June 20, 2014 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
Order:
Surjit Singh, J. (President)
-
This appeal by one of the opposite parties is directed against the order dated 18.1.2014, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, whereby in a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed by respondent-complainant, direction has been given to the appellant-opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 18,000, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, on account of subsidy benefit and also to pay Rs. 4,000 on account of compensation, and Rs. 2,000, as litigation expenses. Respondent No. 1, Santosh Singh, filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the present appellant, who was impleaded as opposite party No. 2 and respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, alleging that he had purchased a solar water heating system also known as 'ETC, from opposite party No. 2, i.e. the present appellant, on payment of a sum of Rs. 35,700, on 4.7.2011, and that he was entitled to refund of a sum of Rs. 18,000 on account of subsidy. It was alleged that despite repeated demands, the amount of subsidy had not been refunded. Appellant was alleged to be authorized dealer of M/s. Synergy Solar (P) Ltd., who was impleaded as opposite party No. 3, and is respondent No. 3 in the present complaint. Respondent No. 2, Shri Hem Raj Sharma, was alleged to be an agent of the appellant. Respondent No. 4 was impleaded because the refund of subsidy amount can be claimed only from those suppliers of solar apparatus, who are registered with respondent No. 4.
-
Separate replies were filed by all the opposite parties. Present appellant pleaded that he was an authorized dealer of respondent No. 3 and, therefore, the liability, if any, for payment of subsidy amount was that of respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 stated that neither the appellant nor respondent No. 3 was registered with it as supplier on the date when the apparatus was purchased. Respondent No. 1 denied that he was the agent of the present appellant, or had anything to do with the sale of apparatus by the appellant.
-
Learned District Forum, vide impugned order has allowed the complaint as against the present appellant only and directed him to refund a sum of Rs. 18,000 with interest and also to pay compensation and litigation expenses, as aforesaid.
-
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
-
Though the apparatus was booked on 16.10.2010, as is made out from order form, Annexure...
To continue reading
Request your trial