KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 270/2022

JUDGMENT DATED: 10.10.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 373/2015 of CDRC, Kannur)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. Deepesh, Volt and Watts, Opp: Mission Hospital, Thalassery.

2. Anoop, Volt and Watts, Opp: Mission Hospital, Thalassery.

(By Adv. Sandeep T. George)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Abdul Azeez, S/o Moideen Haji, Kappithan House, Nettur P.O., Thalassery.

2. Suhara E., Kappithan House, Nettur P.O., Thalassery.

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed u/s 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the opposite parties in C.C. No. 373/2015 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kannur (will be referred to as District Commission for brevity) against the order dated 04.02.2022.  As per the impugned order the District Commission had directed the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 4,20,000/- being the cost of the solar system and the batteries fixed at the premises of the complainants along with interest @ 4% per annum and compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with a default clause to pay interest @ 9% on failure to deposit the amount within one month.    

2.  The case of the complainants in brief is that the opposite parties had approached them and introduced themselves as dealers of solar panel and promised that once the solar panel is installed there will be considerable reduction in the electricity charge.  They assured that the bimonthly electricity bill amount would come down to Rs. 300/- as all the electrical equipments in the residential premises including air conditioner would work with the energy generated from the solar panel.  They could convince the complainants by showing the advertisements and assured that after service facility would be made available.  On 23.07.2013 the opposite parties gave quotation in which the total amount for installation of the solar panel was quoted as Rs. 3,14,000/-.  It was also assured that the panel will be installed and it will be ready to function within three months after receipt of the advance payment.  Believing the assurance made by the opposite parties, the 1^st complainant had placed the order by paying Rs. 10,000/- as advance on 14.08.2013.  Even after receiving the advance payment the opposite parties did not perform their part of promise.  On 28.12.2013 the opposite parties had brought an item intended for fixation of the solar panel for an amount of Rs. 16,000/- and kept the same in the residence of the complainants.  After securing the order and receiving the advance payment the opposite parties did not perform their promise in the correct perspective.  After much deliberation two more items required for installation were brought to the house of the complainants on 25.05.2014 and kept along with the earlier items.  On 11.06.2014 two more items were brought and kept at the premises.  On 13.07.2014 the complainants paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and on 07.08.2014 another payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made.  Subsequently on 10.09.2014 the complainants had paid Rs. 50,000/-.  Thus they had paid a total sum of Rs. 2,60,000/-.  The solar panel was installed.  But there was no decrease in their electricity charge.  At the time of negotiation it was assured that the opposite parties will fix the solar panel and the accessories and requested the complainants to undertake the fixation of channels/pipes and also to bear the cost of the same.  They promised that the said amount can be deducted from the total amount to be paid for the solar panel.  The complainants had arranged the pipes and fixed the same by spending a total sum of Rs. 60,000/-.  When the opposite parties were informed about the absence of any change in the electricity bill even after installation of the solar panel, the complainants were told that it is on account of the electricity meter installed by the KSEB.  Believing the words of the opposite parties the complainants had filed a protest with the KSEB about the excessive bills.  The concerned engineer of the KSEB had visited the house of the complainants and inspected the meter fixed at the premises.  Even after that there was no reduction in the electricity charges.  Then the opposite parties opined that the battery fixed at the premises is having a lower capacity and they assured that if the complainants were inclined to install a V-Guard tubular battery the entire problem could be resolved.  Accordingly they had again spent an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and purchased the specified battery and fixed the same.  But still there was no change in the electricity bill.  The complainants had also received a letter from the Assistant Engineer, KSEB stating that there was no defect in the electricity meter installed at the premises.  The complainants could realize that there was escalation in the electricity bill after installation of the solar system.  While installing the additional battery to the solar system the technician had connected the battery to the electric supply line of KSEB.  Thus the additional battery of the solar panel was charged from the electric supply of the complainants.  This had caused escalation of the current charges.  The complainants had spent a total amount of Rs. 4,20,000/- towards the installation of solar panel in their premises.  They had paid an additional amount of Rs. 1,06,000/- over the claim raised till the installation of solar panel.   According to the complainants the conduct of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complainants had filed the complaint before the District Commission.  They had sought for refund of Rs. 4,20,000/- being the total cost incurred for installation of the solar panel and an additional amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was claimed for damages. 

3.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version contending that there was no deficiency of service on their part on the following grounds.  They never assured that the electricity charge will come down to Rs. 300/- per month or the air conditioner would function with the help of the solar panel.  However, they claimed that their technicians were available to attend to the complaints informed by the complainant.  The delay caused in the installation had occurred on account of the failure of the complainants in fixing the system and in paying the total amount.  The electricity bill was enhanced on account of the low quality of the battery installed.  Their request for fixation of additional four batteries was as per the direction of the complainants.  The escalation of electricity charge occurred due to the earth leakage of the wiring in the complainants’ residential building.  According to them an amount of Rs. 3,74,000/- alone was received by them for the installation of solar panel.  They would seek for dismissal of the complaint. 

4.  The 1^st complainant was examined as PW1.  Exts. A1 to A15 were marked on their side.  An expert who had examined the premises filed Exts. C1 and C2.  The expert commissioner was examined as PW2.  On the side of the opposite parties 2^nd opposite party was examined as DW1. 

5.  Heard the counsel for the appellants and the 1^st respondent who appeared in person, perused the records received from the District Commission.

6.  The appellant would assail the order of the District Commission on the following grounds: The District Commission ought to have found that the complainants did not cause production of any documentary evidence to prove their case.  The District Commission ought to have found that the complaint was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties on account of non-impleadment of the manufacturer.  The District Commission ought to have issued notices to the appellants in respect of the posting dates of the case as the District Commission remained closed from March 2020 on account of the spread of Covid-19.  The District Commission ought to have found that the complainants did not avail the warranty claim as the equipments were having no manufacturing defects.  It is also contended that the report of the commissioner was vague as the system was not in operation at the time of inspection by the expert.  The District Commission did not consider the inconsistencies crept in the evidence of the commissioner regarding the number of solar panels seen at the time of inspection and deviation from the version when tendered evidence before the District Commission.  The appellants would seek for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission. 

7.  The 1^st complainant had given evidence before the District Commission as PW1 in support of the averments contained in the complaint.  Ext. A1 is the quotation issued by the 2^nd opposite party for the installation of solar panel, 13 in number with one solar inverter and four V-Guard batteries.  Exts. A2 to A7 are the cash bills evidencing the payments made by the complainants for installation of the solar panel.  Exts. A8 to A11 are the demand notice issued by the KSEB to the complainant in respect of the electricity bills for his residential premises.  These receipts would show that sums ranging Rs. 5,540/-, Rs. 3,993/- and Rs. 7,336/- were charged by the KSEB towards the consumption of electricity at the residence of the complainants. 

8.  As per the initial objection raised by the opposite parties, the complainants had filed a petition to the KSEB, Dharmadam Section seeking a checking of the electric meter fixed at the premises.  Ext. A12 is the complaint filed by the complainants to the KSEB.  By virtue of Ext. A13 the KSEB had reported that there was no abnormality to the meter fixed at the premises and they declared that the meter fixed was properly working.  Ext. A14 is the copy of the lawyer notice sent to the opposite parties as per the instruction given by the complainant.  Ext. A15 is the reply sent by the opposite parties.  Exts. C1 and C2 are the reports filed by the Advocate commissioner and the expert commissioner after inspecting the premises.  The inspections by the Advocate commissioner and the expert were done in the presence of the complainant as well as the opposite parties.  The expert had reported that the solar power plant was dead and not in working condition.  He had also found 8 batteries.  The details of the batteries are also noted.  In Ext. C1 the commissioner has specifically reported that the inspection was done in the presence of the complainant as well as the opposite parties.  The initial burden of the complainants regarding the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in erecting the solar panel is discharged. The testimonies of the 1^st complainant as well as that of the expert commissioner were available before the District Commission to appreciate the pleadings contained in the complaint.  The electricity charges in the residential premises of the complainants had increased after the installation of solar panel at their home.  The case of the opposite party is that the report filed by the Advocate commissioner and the expert commissioner cannot be accepted to reach a conclusion that the solar panel was defective.  The opposite party had no case that the electricity consumption of the complainants had decreased after the installation of solar panel.  But the opposite parties had raised a contention that the excessive consumption of electricity occurred due to the earth leakage of the wiring fixed at the residential premises.  But it is significant to note that the opposite parties never gave the work memo to the Advocate commissioner or the expert at the time of inspection to prove their contention.  When the complainants had brought convincing evidence before the District Commission regarding the hike in the electricity charge at their premises after the installation of the solar panel, the burden is upon the opposite parties to adduce convincing evidence to substantiate their contention that the hike in the electricity charge occurred due to the faulty wiring at the premises.  During the cross examination of the 2^nd opposite party as DW1 he gave evidence that all the electrical appliances other than the air conditioner could be operated with the aid of the solar panel.  DW1 had conceded before the District Commission that he had received complaint from the complainants regarding the hike in electricity bill.  But no contention is seen raised by the opposite party in the reply notice regarding the leakage in the wiring at the premises of the complainants.  When a plea is raised by the opposite parties that excess consumption of electricity arose on account of the faulty wiring, the burden is upon the opposite parties to prove the same.  But no steps are seen taken by the opposite parties to substantiate the contention.  On evaluating the evidence on record it could be seen that there was inordinate delay caused in the installation of solar system and the installation of solar system had caused an additional burden to the complainants as it was found defective in its operation from the initial stage itself.  When the work involves technical skill it is up to the persons who had installed the same to take necessary steps by adducing convincing evidence that the solar system was not defective and that the excess consumption of electricity at the premises arose on account of the faulty wiring.  No steps are seen taken by the opposite parties to substantiate their case.  On a careful consideration of the materials on record we have no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the opposite parties had installed a defective solar system at the residence of the complainants and adopted unfair trade practice in causing financial loss to the complainants.  The District Commission has appreciated the evidence in a proper manner and reached a correct conclusion.  The District Commission was right in passing an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 4,20,000/- to the complainants.    Award of compensation is also found as reasonable.  Therefore we affirm the order passed by the District Commission. 

In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

Parties shall bear their respective costs. 

The respondents/complainants are permitted to receive the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made by the appellants at the time of filing the appeal and also Rs. 2,00,000/- deposited before the District Commission as per the order in I.A. No. 680/2022 while granting the stay order, on proper acknowledgment.            

            AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb