This case has arisen out of application U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The case of the complainant is that the O.P/Mr. Pranab Biswas deals business of Solar Power Plant under name & style ATES India Pvt. Ltd having its office at Kolkata & for heavy electricity use in his house the complainant being a service man contacted O.P to purchase a Solar Power Plant in August, 2018 and the O.P visited complainant’s house at Debinagar, Raiganj for survey of the installation site and took a sum of Rs.15,000/- & the complainant agreed to purchase the plant and to pay a sum of Rs.3,10,000/- against total installation of 3KW Solar Power Plant. The O.P agreed to provide Solar panels (320wp-10 nos), Exide batteries (12 V-150Ah, 6 nos), Hybrid Inverter 3KW (Microtek or Luminous) robust GI Structure (10 feet X 30 feet), Junction boxes, AC/DC box, Finolex Cable, Lightning arrestor, transportation and installation within the cost of Rs.3,10,000/-. The materials reached complainant’s house on 22/10/2018 after payment of Rs.2,35,000/- but the installation of the entire unit completed in the last week of February, 2019.

That the complainant faced the problem of power backup along with the frequent failure of Microtek Inverter & on inspection by vendor it was found that the inverter mother board was damaged which was replaced by Microtek inverter but the problem was still there and the batteries got discharged without the supply of load and on inspection it was found that the connection of the batteries was faulty and were never charged due to wrong connection as told by Exide battery vendor.

 That the complainant contacted with Mr. Biswas and he agreed to provide another inverter of Exide make for non availability of Microtek inverter and the complainant had to pay Rs.20,000/- on 30/09/2019 as demanded by the O.P and the same was installed on complainant’s residence on 01.10.2019. Thereafter, complainant returned back two extra batteries to the O.P and O.P promised to pay Rs.28,000/- instead of Rs.33,000/- within a month by issuing written declaration for Rs.25,000/- and the O.P replied to pay the rest, but he cannot provide declaration for that and he also promised to provide the bills and installation papers of new installation from the date of its final commissioning. The complainant suffered irreparable loss due to negligent act and fraudulent trade practice of the O.P/Mr. Pranab Biswas also causing mental pain and agony. The complainant prays for getting return of Rs.48,000/- paid in excess, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost.

The O.P entered appearance and submits written objection but at last did not contest the case.

The complainant submits examination-in-chief on affidavit, tendered the same as P.W.1 and also tendered the documents filed by him. The credit voucher No- 208 dated 05/08/2018 shows that the complainant paid an advance for installation of 3.2 KW Solar system to be installed by ATES India Pvt. Ltd run by Mr. Pranab Biswas. Road Challan dated 22.10.2018 shows the quantity, description of goods, its price totaling Rs.3,10,000/-. Account statement of the complainant as on 31.10.2020 shows that on 12.10.2018 and 30.09.2019 amount of Rs.2,35,000/- & Rs.20.000/-  were paid to the O.P concern through RTGS to ATES India Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata. The report of Exide battery vendor dated 06/07/2019 as to fault is produced. The complainant submits declaration letter dated 28.09.2019 issued by the O.P who agreed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant after selling of the batteries within one month of receiving the batteries from his residence and undertake to provide the warranty of the new inverter from the date of its installation.

Though in written objection the O.P stated that he did not receive the batteries from the residence of the complainant but no evidence come to that effect.

Be that as it may, the documents produced by the complainant show that against the quoted price Rs.3,10,000/- the complainant has paid Rs.15,000/- + Rs.2,35,000/- + Rs.20,000/-= Rs.2,70,000/-, so the claim of receipt of Rs.40,000/- as extra payment by the O.P from the complainant is not proved, rather Rs.40,000/-found outstanding. The O.P admits that the complainant paid Rs.5,000/- in cash to the driver of transporter, in total Rs.2,75,000/- still there was outstanding of Rs.35,000/- to be payable by the complainant to the O.P concern. Therefore, we are of the view that the deal had been incomplete, not only due to the negligent act and fraudulent trade practice of the O.P but for non-payment of outstanding amount, payable by the complainant to the O.P and there was no cause of action to file this case and the case is liable to be dismissed.

In the result the case dismissed.

Hence, it is

O R D E R E D

that the C.C-47/2020 be and the same is dismissed ex-parte.

Let a copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.