Complainant Mrs.Kiran Mohan has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to   rectify the problem in the solar Energy General Plant or to refund the amount deposited by her  alongwith interest @ 12% from the deposit of the token amount. Opposite party be further directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- for compensation for deficiency in service and causing harassment from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that she is NRI. The opposite parties deal with the supply and installation of Solar Inventor/Solar Panels. She approached the opposite parties for the installation of Inverter of 6.0 KVA having capacity to generate 3.780 watts having 12 Solar Panels in order to produce Solar Electricity  Energy. The opposite parties have the quotation for the same for the total amount of Rs.5,70,000/- out of which  Rs.1,48,280/- was discounted and  Rs.90,720/- was the Government Sub Discount (Sub city) PEDA and her effective cost  was Rs.3,31,000/-.  She paid Rs.2,31,000/- to the opposite parties on 15.12.2015 as advanced deposit vide booking receipt no.421 dated 15.12.2015 duly issued  by the opposite parties. The opposite parties  have further received an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from her on 16.12.2015 and made written receipt. Thus,, they have received the total amount of  Rs.3,31,000/- from her for the installation of aforesaid Solar Panel. The opposite parties installed the said panels in her Farm House at village Malowal, Pandori, Post Office Ghazikot, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. All these panels carry a performance warranty of 25 years. She has further pleaded that after the installation, the said Solar Panels are not generating 6 KVA/3.780 watt of Solar power and instead, it is generating only 2.023 and sometimes 22.65.1 watts of energy. She made  many complaints to the opposite parties to correct the generation of the energy.  She also sent a mail even on various dates requesting  them to rectify the problem in the system but  the opposite party are putting  off the matter on one pretext  or the other and have not rectified the defect in the system  and finally on May, 26,2016, the opposite  parties refused to entertain the complaints giving excuse that there  is no viable solution and thereby, she requested the opposite parties to refund the amount deposited with opposite parties  but all  in vain.  Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.           Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has suppressed material facts from Hon'ble Forum and had taken certain more preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that at the time of the Sale of the Panels in question an amount of Rs.90,720.00 was discounted from the total bill  amount  on account of Govt. Subsidy Account (PEDA) and it was assured by the complainant the required documents for claiming the Subsidy shall be provided at the earliest but the complainant has  failed to provide the same even till today. The opposite party has thus raised the demand for the outstanding amount  of Rs.90,720/- from the complainant as she  did not provide the Subsidy documents to the opposite parties and in absence of which  the opposite party could not claim the  same from the Government. It was further admitted that the Panels were installed at the farm house of  the complainant at village Malowal, Paandori.. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.       Counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1, of Dr.Mangal Singh Ex.CW-2  and of Sh.Dalbir Singh J.E. Ex.CW-3 alongwith other documents Ex.CW4 to Ex.CW-26 and closed the evidence.

5.       Sh.Rahul  Bhandari  Prop. of opposite parties tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-16 and closed the evidence.

6.      We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence as made available on the complaint records (as duly put forth by the participating litigants) prompting the instant dispute resulting into the present complaint along with the scope of adverse inference that may be judicially but discretionarily drawn on account of non-submission of some of the prime documents being otherwise vital to statutory adjudication, in the very backdrop of arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for the herein litigating parties.

7.       We find that the NRI woman complainant had on record purchased (affidavit Ex.Cw1) One 6 KVA 12 Panel Solar Energy Convertor 3780 Watt Capacity Generation for a total consideration of Rs.3,31,000/- that however has been discount-rebated of the Govt. Subsidy of Rs.90,720/- to be claimed and retained by the OP vendor on behalf of and at the claim-application (in the form of affidavit) of the beneficiary complainant. We, further observe that the so purchased Unit carried the performance warranty of 25 years but it failed to generate 3780 watts as per its rated capacity and usually generated energy in the optimum range of 2023 to 2265 watts. The OP venders were duly approached with requests for undertaking the requisite rectifications for uplifting the performance to the unit rated capacity of 3780 watts but to no use and thus prompted the present complaint.

8.       We find that the present complainant has successfully proved all his complaint-contented allegations vide her affidavits (Ex.CW1 to Ex.CW3) and other evidentiary documents Ex.CW4 to Ex.CW26; and we further find that the OP vendor has preferred his affidavit Ex.OP1 along with other evidentiary documents (Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP16) in his attempt to satisfactorily explain the involved ‘technical-factors’ that adversely affect the unit’s performance to reduce its capacity to its reduced optimum level. We observe that the rebuttal pleadings as put forth by the OP vendor may be factually/technically true and acceptable but there has been no evidence as put forth on record proceedings that these technical facts were foretold to the complainant during the sales/marketing canvassing sessions held with her and other family members. We are of the considered opinion that suppression of these technical facts pertaining to optimum performance of the Solar Units during the pre-sales canvassing class/session etc amount to unfair trade practices giving way to deficiency in service on the OP vendor’s part. 

9.       However, we (in line with the settled trite law) are inclined to subject the ‘award’ to the restrictions of ‘moderation’ so as not to cause undue enrichments to the ‘awardee’ and/or to cast undue excessive ‘distress’ to the delinquent party especially when the present complainant also owes to provide the OP vendor with an appropriate affidavit to enable him to claim the applicable Govt. Subsidy that he has already discounted from the invoiced price as charged to the unit’s consideration money to her.             

10.     In the light of the all above, we find the hue of actionable statutory merit in the present complaint and partly allow the present complaint thus ORDER the OP Vendor to rectify the presently sold/ installed Solar Unit so as to make it perform at its best possible optimum level with the express consent and permission of the complainant or in the alternative if the defects cannot be removed then whole amount paid by the complainant to  the OP's is directed to be refunded alongwith interest @ 9% PA from the date of deposit. The OP's are also directed to pay her Rs. 25,000/- as cost and compensation for causing loss and harassment through suppression of technical aspects of the sold/installed Solar Unit and that too within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% PA from the date of the present orders till actual payment. 

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.         

                                                                         (Naveen Puri)

                                                                               President.

ANNOUNCED:                                                         (Jagdeep Kaur)

July 04,2018.                                                            Member                  

*MK*