IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Tuesday the 31^st day of August, 2021.

                                      Filed on 24-02-2018

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. Sholy P.R, B.A.L,LLB (Member)

In

CC/No.60/2018

between

Complainant:-                                                             Opposite parties:-

Sri.P.K.Rajan                                                          1.    The Director         

S/o Kesavan                                                                    ANERT, Kuttungal Complex

Rajagiri House                                                               North of Indira Junction

Karuvatta South Muri                                                     Avalookunnu P.O.

Karuvatta P.O., Alappuzha                                             Thondamkulangara

(Adv.Sri.D.Biju)                                                             Alappuzha

                                                                                      (Party in person)

                                                                               2.     Smt.Sushama

                                                                                       Office Manager

                                                                                       Adithya Solar Energy Systems

                                                                                       Regd. Office, 209, 1^st floor

                                                                                       Meghana complex,

                                                                                       Balanagar, Hyderabad-500037

                                                                                       (exparte)

O R D E R

SRI. S.SANTHOSH KUMAR (PRESIDENT)

Complaint filed under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-

As per the application of the complainant 1^st opposite party had agreed to install 10,000 rooftop solar plant programme 2012-13 and it was registered with ANERT as registration No.SRP/2012/000-200.  Under the direction and as an agent of the 1^st opposite party the 2^nd opposite party executed the proposed solar installation with a warranty for a period of 5 years for the battery and a period of 20 years warranty for the solar panels.   The project was completed on 15.05.2013.

The battery showed complaints on 06.01.2018 onwards and though it was intimated to the opposite parties, several times there was no result.  Due to the non-functioning of the solar system complainant sustained heavy loss and now he is solely depending upon the power supply of KSEB.   Complainant is entitled to get compensation for the loss of power due to the battery failure.

The opposite party should replace the battery as on the date of the failure of the battery since it happened within the warranty period.  As per the agreement they are bound to rectify the defects and bound to replace the battery.  Complainant is to be compensated for the loss sustained by him @ Rs.50/- per day.  Hence the complaint.

2.      2^nd opposite party remained exparte.

1^st opposite party filed a version mainly contenting as follows:-

ANERT is the nodal agency of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Government of India and the designated agency of the Government of Kerala for the implementation of New and Renewable Energy Programmes in Kerala.  A programme for the installation of 10,000 numbers 1 KW solar power plant was submitted to MNRE by ANERT and it was sanctioned.  The role of ANERT is to facilitate the beneficiaries of Kerala intending to install solar power plant of 1 KW with Central Financial Assistance.  In addition to Central Financial Assistance an amount of Rs.39,000/- per system was sanctioned by the Government of Kerala for this project.

The Government of India (MNRE) has fixed technical complaints and norms for the implementation of programmes under Jawaharlal Nehru Solar Mission for availing Central Financial Assistance.  To make available agencies with required qualification, ANERT had invited expression of interest from the approved channel partners of MNRE for the implementation of 10000 roof top programmes.

Based on this, the bench mark cost was fixed and a list of agencies through which this programme could be implemented was prepared and published.  A registration process of beneficiaries was initiated for registering as beneficiary for the allotment of subsidy under this programme.  The beneficiary was given the freedom to select any of the agencies for implementation of the project at his premises based on his choice.  Before installation a pre-installation site survey has to be conducted by the selected agency and if site is feasible for installation a pre-installation site survey report, copy of work order by beneficiary and the copy of agreement between beneficiary and agency has to be submitted to the ANERT District Office concerned along with an undertaking by the beneficiary of the upkeep of the system.

The responsibility of placing work order after choosing an agency of his/her liking lies with the beneficiary.  The timeline of installation, payment conditions, warranty etc. have to be clearly listed in the agreement executed between the beneficiary and the agency.  The beneficiary is paying the cost of the system after deducting the subsidy from the total cost of system including installation based on the authorization by the beneficiary.  ANERT will release the subsidy amount to the agency which has installed the system on satisfactory completion and performance of the system.

After receiving the completion report technical compliance required for availing central and the State financial assistance is verified.  Based on the report from the beneficiary regarding the satisfactory working of the system, technical compliance and the recommendation of release of subsidy from District Engineer, the release of CFA is processed.  As a facilitator, the matter was taken up with the agency which had installed the system on getting the complaint from beneficiary.  Based on the above, it is the responsibility of the empanelled agency, who has installed the solar system to rectify the complaints and maintain the warranty conditions.  The beneficiary and the empanelled agency had executed an agreement in this regard while awarding order.  Hence it is prayed that the issue may be settled between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.

3.      On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration :-

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize an amount of Rs.50/- per day from 06.01.18 till replacing the battery as prayed for?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to realize any amount as damages on account of mental agony as prayed for?
4. Reliefs and costs?

4.      Evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A3 from the side of the complainant and the oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 from the side of 1^st opposite party.

5.      Point Nos.1 to 3:-

PW1 is the complainant in this case.  He filed an affidavit in tune with the complaint and marked Ext.A1 to A3. 

RW1 is the project coordinator of 1^st opposite party.  He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and marked Ext.B1.

PW1, complainant in this case installed a Rooftop Solar Plant manufactured by 2^nd opposite party.  1^st opposite party was the nodal agency of Govt. of India and Govt. of Kerala for installing the solar panel. 1^st opposite party preferred a panel of manufactures and complainant selected 2^nd opposite party from the said panel. The project was completed on 15/5/2013. The battery had a warranty of 5 years and the solar panel had a warranty of 20 years.   The battery showed complaints on 6/1/2018.  Though the matter was intimated to the opposite parties several times, there was no response and hence the complaint is filed for changing the battery and compensation at the rate of         Rs. 50/- per day from 6/1/2018 and damages for mental agony.  2^nd opposite party remained exparte.  1^st opposite party filed a version  mainly contenting that they are  the nodel agency of Ministry of  New and Renewable Energy(MNRE) Government of India and the designated agency of the  Government of Kerala for the implementation of  New and Renewable Energy Programs in Kerala.   They had prepared a list of manufacturers and it is for the beneficiary to select them and install it.  There duty is only to inspect the installation and to give the subsidy.  According to 1^st opposite party it is for the 2^nd opposite party to settle the dispute and 1^st opposite party has nothing to do regarding the warranty of the battery and solar panel.  Complainant got examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 and A4 series were marked. The project coordinator of 1st opposite party was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 was marked.   PW1 filed chief affidavit on 28/9/2019 and documents were marked.  On that day there was no cross examination for the 1^st opposite party.  Later on 17/2/2020 1^st opposite party filed IA.45/2020 to review the order and permit them to cross examine PW1.  Though copy was served on 17/2/2020 itself inspite of several notices complainant did not appear for cross examination. 

          The fact that PW1 installed the solar panel manufactured by the 2^nd opposite party and work was completed on 15/5/2013 is not in dispute.  Though no documents are produced, RW1 admitted that the battery is having a warranty of 5 years and the panel is having a warranty of 25 years. RW1 also admitted that from 6/1/2018 onwards the battery is not working.  According to RW1 on getting the complaint he contacted the 2^nd opposite party several times to redress the grievance of complainant but there was no response from them.  As pointed out in the version and in the chief examination according to RW1 they are only a nodel agency facilitating the installation of the solar panel.   It is for the beneficiary to enter into a contract with the manufactures for installing the solar panel.   To prove the contentions he relied upon Ext.B1 under taking  by the beneficiary.  It is seen executed on 8/5/2013 and PW1,  P.K.Rajan    is a signatory to it.   Item No.2 of Ext.B1 reads as follows:-

“I have selected the agency for the installation of solar power plant from the list of agencies empanelled by ANERT   as per my choice and any dispute regarding installation payment and warranty shall be sorted out between me and the agency that installed the system.”

  So from Ext.B1 undertaking clause 2 it is pellucid that any dispute regarding the installation is to be sorted out between the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party who had installed the solar panel.  It includes warranty also.

          As stated earlier RW1 admitted that the battery is having a warranty of  5 years.  He also admitted that from 6/1/2018 onwards the battery is not working.  As rightly pointed out by RW1 being a nodel agency and in the light of Ext.B1 undertaking it is for the complainant to settle the dispute with the company who installed the solar panel.  Since the project was completed on 15/5/2013 and the battery showed complaint on 6/1/2018 it is within the warranty period and so 2^nd opposite party is liable to change the battery.  The 2^nd opposite party though received notice of this complaint remained exparte.  Since the complaint of battery arose within the warranty period it is the duty of 2^nd opposite party to change the same. 

          Complainant is claiming an amount of Rs.50/- per day from 6/1/2018 till the replacing of battery on a contention that he was depending on the power supply of the KSEB.  However not even a scrap of  paper is seen produced and marked in evidence to show that he was paying Rs. 50/- per day to the KSEB.  Even a single bimonthly bill of the KSEB is not produced to prove the amount spend by PW1.  Complainant is also claiming damages for the mental agony.  However he has not specified the quantum of the amount.  Admittedly the project was completed on 15/5/2013 and the battery became faulty on 6/1/2018.   Ext.A4 series shows that PW1 had spend about Rs.85,515/- for  purchasing the solar panel.  It has also come out in evidence that the battery became faulty within the warranty period and he had relied upon KSEB for power supply.  In said circumstances PW1 is entitled for compensation for mental agony and we are allowing Rs.10,000/- for the same.  These points are found accordingly.

6.      Point No.4:-

          In the result complaint is allowed in part.

(A) 2^nd opposite party is directed to change the battery of the solar panel   installed at the rooftop of PW1.

(B) PW1 is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation from the 2^nd opposite party.

(C)   PW1 is allowed to realize an amount of Rs.2000/- as cost from the 2^nd opposite party.

          The order shall be complied within one month from receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the   31^st      day of August, 2021.

   Sd/- Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

                                              Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                    -        P.K.Rajan(Complainant)

Ext.A1                -        Letter dtd. 23/3/2013

Ext.A2                -        Borchure of  Adhithya Solar Energy Systems        

Ext.A3                -        Letter dtd. 7/7/2018       

Ext.A4 series       -        Receipts     

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1          -        Krishnakumar (Witness)

Ext.B1       -        Copy of Undertaking by the Beneficiary

 True Copy //

To     

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-