| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 158 of 26.4.2018 Decided on: 15.10.2020 Ajit Singh aged 63 years son of Dargah Singh R/o Ghanaur, Tehsil Rajpura District Patiala( M.No.95928-47464) …………...Complainant Versus - Bright Life Solutions (Solar House) through its Prop No.1/Partner Sailesh jindal, situated at our Lady of Fatima, Convent School Road, Near Chawla Chicken near 22 No.Phatak, Patiala.
- EMMVEE Photovoltaic Power Pvt. Ltd., # 13/1, International Airport Road, Beetahalasur Post, Bengaluru-562157
…………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Sh. Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President Sh.Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member ARGUED BY Sh.Gorki Dhiman, counsel for complainant. Sh.Alok Dewan,counsel for OP No.1. OP No.2 exparte. ORDER JASJIT SINGH BHINDER,PRESIDENT - This is the complaint filed by Ajit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Bright Life Solutions and another(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter referred to as the Act)
- Brief facts of the are that the proprietor of OP No.1 approached the complainant that he is one of the best in Punjab for providing Solar System services Manufactured by OP No.2. He also assured the complainant that there is subsidy on the installation of solar system. It was also told by him that whenever excess energy generated by the solar, which is not required by the complainant, in that eventuality, the complainant can circulate the energy in the pool. It is also assured that OP No.1 has vast experience of installation of solar panel and a very good technical team for the after sales services and removal of the defect if any within the warranty of five years, performance warranty 90% upto 10 years and 80% upto 25 years.
- It is averred that on the allurement and assurance of OP No.1, the complainant purchased the solar panels i.e. four panels of 250 watt each= 1000 watt from OP No.1 after making payment of Rs.73,000/- against the bill No.317 dated 22.1.2014.
- It is further averred that after some time of the installation of the solar system, it started giving trouble, it being usually stopped after started working at around 7PM and it did not work at night. It also did not recharge the batteries during the day time. At this the complainant approached OP No.1 and requested to remove the defect as the system was within guarantee. The OP No.1 asked the complainant to purchase microtech inverter and battery for the effective functioning of solar system. The complainant also purchased the inverter alongwith battery vide invoice No.12703 dated 22.1.2014 for Rs.28000/-.But even after installation of battery, the defect in the solar system persisted.
- It is averred that whenever the complainant approached OP No.1 for removal of the defect, it put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Subsidy was also not provided to the complainant. No guarantee card was ever handed over to the complainant even on repeated requests made by him. All this caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant. There is thus deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to exchange the solar system with equal price of solar system installed earlier or to refund the amount of Rs.73,000/-; to pay Rs.28,000/- on account of purchasing the batteries and inverter; to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment and also to pay Rs.11000/-as legal expenses.
- Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs. OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. None appeared on behalf of OP No.2 after service through registered notice. It was accordingly proceeded against ex-parte.
- In the reply filed by OP No.1, it raised preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands; that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and is liable to be dismissed.
- On merits, it is submitted that at the time of purchase of said solar system by the complainant there was no subsidy given by the Govt..It is also submitted that at the time of installation of solar system, the complainant did not have electricity connection so question of excess energy exported to the grid is not valid.
- It is admitted to the extent that the OP has vast experience of installation of solar panel and a very good technical team for the after sales services and removal of the defect, if any within the guarantee period. It is submitted that on the request of the complainant,the technical team of the OP visited the house of the complainant and found that the panel was totally broken and lying in the neighbourer’s house. It is further submitted that the complainant at his own purchased the solar panel i.e. four panels of 250 watt each=1000 watt after paying Rs.73000/- to the OP.
- It is submitted that the system started giving trouble and did not work in night and did not recharge the batteries during the day time as it was found that the complainant was running too much load in the day time including water motor and that’s why the battery got discharge quickly. The complainant was also explained by the technical team of the OP not to put too much load on the panel otherwise he will not get anything back from the batteries in night. After that the complainant went to M/s Jaspal Electrical Works situated at Sirhind Road, Patiala and purchased battery.
- It is further submitted that the bill of solar system itself is a guarantee card even today also. It is further submitted that the company provides 25 years of performance warrantee and the warrantee does not apply to any PV Module due to accidental breakage. The OP has provided due and sufficient services to the complainant as and when demanded by him.
- It is further submitted that in the complaint, no where it is mentioned when the solar system started giving trouble. The bill is pertaining to the year 2014 and the complaint is filed in the month of June,2018 after a gap of four years, which is beyond the limitation period.
After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. - In support of the complaint, the complainant alongwith his counsel has tendered into evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of bill of Rs.73,000/-,Ex.C1, copy of bill of Jaspal Electrical Works of Rs.28,000/-, Ex.C2, copy of bill of Microtek International Pvt. Ltd. of Rs.1200/-,Ex.C3, copies of electricity bills, Exs.C4 to C10, copy of newspaper dated 20.5.2018 showing advertisement of the OP,Ex.C11,Ex.C12 copy of warranty and closed the evidence.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for OP No.1 has tendered into evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Shailesh Jindal, Ex.OPB affidavit of Vishesh Jindal alongwith documents i.e. Ex.OP1 copy of warranty conditions, Exs.OP2 to OP5 photographs, Ex.OP6 copy of Govt. Policy dated 8.6.2015 ,Ex.OP7 copy of bi directional meter approval and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- The ld. counsel for the complainant has argued that OP No.1 allured the complainant that he is the best company to install solar system and he will get subsidy on the installation of this system. The ld. counsel has further argued that OP No.1 has also projected that it has vast experience of installation of solar panel and has very good technical team for after sale service.
- The ld. counsel has further argued that on the assurance of the OP, the complainant purchased solar panel from OP No.1 for Rs.73,000/-.It is further argued that after some time the solar system suddenly started giving trouble. Complainant requested OP No.1 and requested for the removal of defect. The ld. counsel further argued that OP No.1 asked the complainant to purchase one Microtech inverter for better functioning. Thereafter he purchased the same for Rs.28,000/- but even after purchase of the same, defect persisted. The ld. counsel for the complainant argued that the solar system is not working properly and prayer has been made that the complaint be accepted and OP be directed to refund Rs.73,000/- and also to pay Rs.28,000/- the price of the inverter alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
- On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has argued that this complaint is barred by time as, as per Section 69 of the New Act and also as per Section 24A of old Act, the limitation is of two years from the date of which the cause of action has arisen. The ld. counsel further argued that in the entire complaint no date has been mentioned by the complainant as to when cause of action has been accrued to him for filing the present complaint. The ld. counsel further argued that Local Commissioner was sent for inspection of the Solar panel in this case and his report is on the file. As per the report of the Local Commissioner, the complainant himself has shifted the system to other part of his house. The ld. counsel further argued that the OP has provided due services to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP and complaint be dismissed.
- Complainant has tendered his affidavit, Ex.CA and he deposed as per his complaint. The complainant has also tendered the bill, Ex.C1,C2,C3 and bills of PSPCL, Exs.C4 to C10.
- On the other hand, on behalf of the OP Sh.Shailesh Jindal tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPA and he has deposed as per the version made in the written reply. Sh.Vishesh Jindal has also tendered his affidavit, Ex.OPB.
- As per Section 24A of the old Act and as per Section 69 of New Act, which came into existence in July,2019 , the complaint is to be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has accrued.
- Admittedly the solar system was installed in January,2014 and the complaint has been filed on 2.5.2018. By going through the complaint, no date has been found mentioned that as to when cause of action has accrued to file the present complaint. No date has been mentioned to show that when the solar system started giving trouble. So, it is clear that this complaint is time barred as per Section 69 of Consumer Protection Act,2019.
- In the affidavit Ex.OPB filed by Vishesh Jindal, it is mentioned that in the month of February,2018, the complainant approached the office of Bright Life Solutions that the solar system is not working properly and requested to check the system. So when the deponent visited the house of the complainant he found that the panel was totally broken and was lying in the neighbourer’s house. The part was affixed on the second floor of the house which was newly built and that all was done by the complainant himself without any technical help and when he reached on the second floor, he found that civil work was not done and the solar system was affixed with ropes and wooden ballas, even the system was found in a breakage condition and the OP informed the complainant that the system is totally broken and cannot be repaired.
- In the present case, Local Commissioner was sent and the report of Sh.Prince Gupta, is on the file who stated in the report that he visited the spot on 7.9.2019 at 11AM in the presence of both the parties and found that solar system was affixed on the 2nd floor of the house at the time of inspection and there were cracks on the solar panel. He also affixed three photographs in support of his report. The case of the OP that the complainant himself changed the location of the solar system.
- So in view of our above discussion, this complaint is time barred it being filed after four years of installation of solar panel as no date of causing mal functioning of the solar panel is mentioned in the complaint and that the complainant himself has changed the location of the solar system. As such the complaint is found without any merits and is dismissed accordingly. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
ANNOUNCED DATED:15.10.2020 Vinod Kumar Gulati Jasjit Singh Bhinder Member President | |
