DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/112/2022
Date of Institution: 05.04.2022
Date of Decision: 19.11.2024
Jatinder Pal Singh, aged about 44 years, son of Balbir Singh resident of #B-XIII/1198/1, Fateh Singh Nagar, Nanaksar Bye Pass Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala-148101 (Mobile No. 90413-28284).
…Complainant
Versus
1. M/s Barnala Solar Energy System, Gurdev Nagar, Street No. 2, Nanaksar Bye Pass Road, Barnala-148101 through its proprietor Manjot Thind;
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala through its Chairman;
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Barnala through its Executive Engineer;
4. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Barnala through its Sub Divisional Officer.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. M.S. Gill Adv counsel for complainant.
Sh. Sumant Goyal Adv counsel for opposite party No. 1.
Sh. J.R. Garg Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 2 to 4.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against M/s Barnala Solar Energy System, Gurdev Nagar, Street No. 2, Nanaksar Bye Pass Road, Barnala-148101 through its proprietor Manjot Thind & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant got installed 3 KV solar energy system from the opposite party No. 1 vide Bill No. 001 dated 10.09.2019 for Rs. 2,04,000/- and it was assured to the complainant by the OP No. 1 that there were two options at that time. Firstly that the complainant would get a subsidy on Rs. 68,000/- per KV plan and secondly the dealer will get a subsidy on Rs. 41,000/- per KV plan and the complainant agreed to the first option and the employees of OPs No. 2 to 4 inspected the said solar energy system and then approved. It is further alleged that as per the option No. 1 the OP No. 1 assured the complainant that the complainant would receive the subsidy shortly. It is alleged that though a period of more than 27 months has elapsed the complainant has not received any subsidy on the said solar system and the complainant has visited the offices of the OPs many times but every time they told to the complainant that subsidy would come and deposited in the account of the complainant. It is further alleged that in this regard on 02.03.2022 the complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties to grant and pay the requisite subsidy on the said solar system alongwith interest @ 18% per annum immediately. But the OP No. 1 sent false and baseless reply on 18.03.2022 to the counsel of the complainant through his Counsel and the opposite parties have failed to pay the requisite subsidy alongwith interest @18% per annum. As such, the act and conduct of the opposite parties comes within the definition of the unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
- The opposite parties may be directed to grant and pay the requisite subsidy of Rs. 81,000/- on the said solar system alongwith interest @ 18% per annum.
- To pay Rs. 30,000/- towards mental tension and harassment.
- Further, to pay Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party No. 1 appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary objections interalia on the grounds that the complainant has not come with clean hands. The present complaint is false and frivolous. The complaint should be dismissed on the ground of Non-Joinder and Mis-Joinder of necessary parties also, as even in the reply sent by the answering OP to the notice sent by the complainant, the OP has clearly mentioned that the OP has installed the roof top solar system as per guidelines in force at the relevant time and the answering OP had clearly informed the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the Government, subsidy if any will be distributed by the PEDA, which was the supervising authority at that time, even then the PEDA is not made a party to the present complaint. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint against the answering OP etc.
4. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant got installed 3KV solar system from the OP No. 1 vide bill no. 001 dated 10.09.2019 for Rs. 2,04,000/- and the employees of PSPCL inspected and then approved for the installation only. It is alleged that neither any option nor any assurance was given by answering opposite party. It is further alleged that the answering OP had installed a 3 KW Rooftop solar energy system at the premises of the complainant as per guidelines in force at the relevant time and answering OP had clearly informed the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the Government, subsidy if any, will be distributed by the PEDA, which was the supervising authority at that time, as per requirement all the formalities were completed and there is no role of answering OP in disbursement of the subsidy. It is alleged that it is impossible that the department/government agency will give 100% subsidy as claimed by the complainant (Rs. 68000/- per KV i.e. 68000/-*3 KV-2,04,000/-) which clearly explains that the claim made by the complainant is vague and false. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
5. The opposite parties No. 2 to 4 filed separate written version by taking preliminary objections on the ground that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law, which is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant with ulterior motive just to grab the money from the opposite party by concocting the false story etc.
6. On merits, it is alleged that no such promise as alleged in the complaint was made by answering opposite parties. It is admitted that the employees of the opposite party No 2 to 4 inspected the solar energy system and then approved. It is further submitted that there is no provision of subsidy in the rules of PSPCL, as such no question of disbursement of subsidy by answering opposite parties. Moreover there is no allegation of any deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite parties. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
7. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written version of opposite parties vide which he denied the averments as mentioned in the written version.
8. To prove the case the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit as Ex.C-1, copy of bill as Ex.C-2, copy of Letter of Approval as Ex.C-3 (containing 5 pages), copy of legal notice as Ex.C-4, postal receipt as Ex.C-5, reply of notice as Ex.C-6, copy of Job order for Device replacement as Ex.C-7, copy of commercial circular No. 04/2020 as Ex.C-8 and closed the evidence.
9. The opposite party No. 1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Manjot Thind Prop M/s Barnala Solar Energy Systems as Ex.OP1/1, copy of bill dated 10.09.2019 as Ex.OP1/2 and closed the evidence.
10. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 has suffered the statement that I do not want to tender any evidence on behalf of opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and closed the same.
11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file. Written arguments filed by the complainant.
12. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant got installed 3 KV solar energy system from the opposite party No. 1 vide Bill No. 001 dated 10.09.2019 for Rs. 2,04,000/- i.e. Ex.C-2 and it was assured to the complainant by the opposite party No. 1 that there were two options at that time firstly that the complainant would get a subsidy on Rs. 68,000/- per KV plan and secondly the dealer will get a subsidy on Rs. 41,000/- per KV plan and the complainant agreed to the first option and the employees of opposite parties No. 2 to 4 inspected the said solar energy system and then approved i.e. Ex.C-3. It is further argued that as per the option No. 1 the opposite party No. 1 assured the complainant that the complainant would receive the subsidy shortly but a period of more than 27 months has been elapsed and the complainant has not received any subsidy on the said solar system and the complainant has visited the offices of the opposite parties many times but every time they told to the complainant that subsidy would come and deposited in the account of the complainant. It is further argued that in this regard on 02.03.2022 the complainant sent a legal notice Ex.C-4 to the opposite parties to grant and pay the requisite subsidy on the said solar system alongwith interest @ 18% per annum immediately. But the opposite party No. 1 sent false and baseless reply on 18.03.2022 to the counsel of the complainant through his Counsel and the opposite parties have failed to pay the requisite subsidy alongwith interest @18% per annum.
13. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 argued that neither any option nor any assurance was given by opposite party No. 1. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 1 had installed a 3 KW Rooftop solar energy system at the premises of the complainant as per guidelines in force at the relevant time and opposite party No. 1 had clearly informed the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the Government, subsidy if any, will be distributed by the PEDA, which was the supervising authority at that time, as per requirement all the formalities were completed and there is no role of opposite party No. 1 in disbursement of the subsidy. It is further argued that it is impossible that the department/government agency will give 100% subsidy as claimed by the complainant (Rs. 68000/- per KV i.e. 68000/-*3 KV-2,04,000/-) which clearly explains that the claim made by the complainant is vague and false.
14. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 2 to 4 argued that no such promise as alleged in the complaint was made by opposite parties No. 2 to 4. It is further argued that the employees of the opposite party No 2 to 4 inspected the solar energy system and then approved. It is further argued that there is no provision of subsidy in the rules of PSPCL, as such no question of disbursement of subsidy by opposite parties No. 2 to 4 and there is no allegation of any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 to 4.
15. We have gone through the facts and evidence produced by the parties. The case of the complainant is that he got installed 3 KV solar energy system from the opposite party No. 1 vide Bill No. 001 dated 10.09.2019 for Rs. 2,04,000/- and it was assured to the complainant by the opposite party No. 1 that there were two options at that time firstly that the complainant would get a subsidy on Rs. 68,000/- per KV plan and secondly the dealer will get a subsidy on Rs. 41,000/- per KV plan and the complainant agreed to the first option and the employees of opposite parties No. 2 to 4 inspected the said solar energy system and then approved, but a period of more than 27 months has been elapsed and the complainant has not received any subsidy on the said solar system as promised by the opposite party No. 1. The complainant to prove his case has placed on record copy of invoice No. 001 dated 10.9.20219 Ex.C-2 which shows that the complainant got installed 3KW Solar Power Generating System and paid an amount of Rs. 2,04,000/- to the opposite party No. 1. But in the above said invoice Ex.C-2 it is nowhere mentioned that the complainant would get a subsidy of Rs. 68,000/- per KV plan as claimed by the complainant in the present complaint. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 argued that the opposite party No. 1 had installed a 3 KW Rooftop solar energy system at the premises of the complainant as per guidelines in force at the relevant time and the opposite party No. 1 clearly informed the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the Government, subsidy if any, will be distributed by the PEDA, which was the supervising authority at that time and there is no role of opposite party No. 1 in disbursement of the subsidy. It is further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the opposite party No. 1 that it is impossible that the department/government agency will give 100% subsidy as claimed by the complainant (Rs. 68000/- per KV i.e. 68000/-*3 KV-2,04,000/-) which clearly explains that the claim made by the complainant is vague and false.
16. So, from the above said facts and circumstances it is established that the complainant has failed to produce any evidence to prove the fact the complainant is entitled to get the above mentioned subsidy from the opposite parties. The complainant has also failed to place on record any document/circular/notification of the Government from which it shows that the complainant would get a certain subsidy on the installation of above said solar energy system. Moreover, the complainant has failed to implead the PEDA (Punjab Energy Development Agency) as party in the present complaint which is necessary party for the proper adjudication of the present complaint, despite specific preliminary objection of opposite party No. 1. The present complaint is bad due to non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled to get any subsidy at the hands of opposite parties.
17. In view of the above discussion, there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is dismissed without costs. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
19th Day of November, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
