Case nº Revision Petition No. 1762 Of 2012, (Against the Order dated 25/01/2012 in Appeal No. 211/2011 of the State Commission Uttar Pradesh) of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, November 23, 2016 (case Solar Impact and Anr. Vs Hotel Samrat Heavens)

JudgeFor Appellant: Ms. Sapna Chauhan, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. Nikhil Jain, Adv.
PresidentMrs. M. Shreesha,Presiding Member
Resolution DateNovember 23, 2016
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Challenge in this Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") is to the order dated 25.01.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No.211 of 2011. By the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal preferred by the Appellant, M/s Slar Impect, in part and modified the order dated 07.01.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Meerut (for short "the District Forum") directing the Appellant to pay `1,99,595/- with interest @ 15% from 20.11.2009 to the Respondent/Complainant within two months together with costs of `5,000/-. Default interest @ 18% p.a., if the amount was not paid within the stipulated time, was also awarded.

The brief facts as set out in the Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased two hot water solar systems with the capacity of 500 LPD make Tata BP Solar make for a sum of `1,99,595/- for the hotel for supply of hot water. The Complainant was assured of good quality with one year warranty, but after some time it is stated that the solar systems had become defunct, as a result of which the hotel clients were inconvenienced as there was no supply of hot water. The Complainant issued a legal notice on 18.09.2010 seeking refund of theamount paid together with compensation of `30,000/- for the inconvenience suffered. The Opposite Parties vide their letter dated 12.02.2010, though, admitted that the system was faulty, did not get it repaired or replace the existing defective system.

The Opposite Parties were set ex parte before the District Forum as they did not appear before the District Forum despite service of notice. The District Forum allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Parties to refund `1,99,595/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from 20.11.2009 and also pay `30,000/- per month for damages and `25,000/- as compensation and `5,000/- as costs.

Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Opposite Parties preferred an Appeal before the State Commission and raised a ground that the Complainant was not a "Consumer" as the purchase of the solar system was made for a hotel, which is for commercial purpose. The State Commission had given a finding that the solar system had become defective during the warranty period and despite several Complaints, there was no response from the Opposite Parties and that the solar system was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT