IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM

Dated this the 27^th day of November, 2021

Present:  Sri. Manulal V.S. President

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member

C C No. 107/2020 (filed on 07-08-2020)

Petitioner                                          :         P.M. Varghese,

                                                                   S/o. Mathew,

                                                                   Parijatam Pamplaniyil,

                                                                   Netaji Road, Mannarkayam P.O.

                                                                   Kunnumbhagam.

                                                                   (Adv. K.S. Asif)

                                                                             Vs.                            

Opposite Party                                 :         Johnykutty Thomson,

                                                                   Valiyamangalam House,

                                                                   20^th mile, K.K. road,

                                                                   Ponkunnam P.O.

                                                                   Pin – 686506.

                                                          O  R  D  E  R

Smt.  Bindhu R,  Member

          This complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

          Complainant is a senior citizen retired as Deputy General Manager from RBI. The opposite party approached the complainant for the installation and commission of roof top solar power plant system 7.5KW capacity with suitable invertor and other accessories at the residence of the complainant.  As per the assurance given by the opposite party that the solar product would generate electricity for the entire use of the complainant’s house and there would be no requirement for consuming electricity from the KSEB.  Believing the assurance, the complainant entrusted the work to the opposite party, consequently the installation work started in February 2018.  The complainant paid Rs.4,05,000/- in the 1^st week of February 2018, Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.25,000/- and Rs.25,000/- on 08-05-2018, 30-05-2018 and 20-06-2018 respectively.  The opposite party had not completed the said work and had not commenced the plant within the time as agreed.  After repeated requests, the opposite party partially commissioned the plant on 15-06-2018.  Because of the defective way of installation and mismatch between solar power generating capacity and the low quality Chinese made invertor and accessories used, the system became inoperative from the next month.  Thereafter, the opposite party took the invertor for repair and only after 3 weeks reinstalled it.  Due to inadequate battery support the plant produced only a meagre amount of electricity.  The opposite party collected Rs.83,000/- on various days from 20-09-2018 and upto 14-03-2018.  On the assurance of the opposite party that adequate energy would be generate for the entire use of the house, complainant severed his existing KSEB connection. From the beginning of December, 2018 the system again ceased to function.  In the 1^st week of December 2018, the opposite party removed the accessories for repairing and received Rs.15,000/- on 12-12-2018 from the complainant.  As the opposite party failed to reinstate the repaired solar plant, the complainant had to spent Rs.2,69,000/- to rectify the system and to repair the damaged roof.  The panel and accessories used by the opposite parties were of substandard quality and the opposite party never produced any bills and other correct details.  The complainant was constrained to take a new KSEB electric connection No.1156332025150 on April 2019.  Due to the lack of expertise of the labourers of the opposite party, the roof of the house was heavily damaged causing water seepage.  The opposite party did not paint the roof top with epoxy paint.  Due to the black colour material used for covering the roof unbearable radiation happened, affecting health of the complainant and his family.  When the complainant demanded, the opposite party to reinstall the system he did not turn up instead he lodged a complaint before DYSP, Ponkunnam that the complainant had failed to make his payments.  When the police officials visited the complainant’s residence they were convinced of the damages done to his house by the opposite party.  So there was no further action on that complaint.  The unfair trade practice and deficiency of service committed by the opposite party caused a lot of sufferings to the complainant.  The opposite party is bound to replace the solar power plant and to reimburse the amount spend by the complainant.  So the complainant sent a registered legal notice dtd.28-05-2020 demanding Rs.9,00,000/- for the damages inaggragate.  Though the opposite party received the notice instead of paying the amount he sent a reply notice stating untenable contentions.  The complainant is entitled to get reimbursement of the amount paid and compensation for the loss suffered by him.  Hence this complaint.

          Though notice was served upon the opposite party, he did not care to appear before the Commission and to file version resisting the allegations in the complaint.

          In the evidence part, the complainant has produced Exts.A1 to A4 vide affidavit in lieu of chief examinations.

          Considering the facts and evidence of the case, we would like to frame the following issues.

1. Whether the complainant has succeeded in establishing the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of the opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation?

For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider issue no.1 and 2 together.

Issue No.1 and 2.

          The complainant has put forward the allegations against the opposite party that he happened to install a solar power plant in his house upon the assurance given by the opposite party that the said plant would generate adequate electricity to meet the use of electricity in his house.  According to the complainant, he has paid around Rs.9 lakhs on different dates for the said project which turned out to be defective causing several loss to the complainant.  The complainant sent a legal notice dated 28-05-2020 to the opposite party alleging all the allegations against him and demanding the repayment of the amount.  Ext.A4 is the reply notice sent by the opposite party in which he admits the installation of the solar panel at the complainant’s house.  In the reply notice, the opposite party admits that he had already received 5 lakhs in 2018 from the complainant.  Though the complainant has not produced any relevant documents to prove the payment of consideration.  The admission by the opposite party itself holds that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party.

          The opposite party in the reply notice has defended the allegations by stating that even at the time of installation he has informed the complainant that the electric devices installed were having 2 years guarantee and warranty.  All the damages happened to the terrace of the complainant were because of the repairing of the tile to prevent water leakage as per the request of the complainant done by the opposite party.  There is a due of 1,75,500/- from the complainant in this regard to the opposite party.

          Though the complainant alleges difficulties in the installation of the quality of the installed products of the solar panel he has not taken any steps to get the same inspected by an expert commissioner and to get a report filed before the Commission.  Even then as the allegations stand before us as unchallenged we infer the solar panel installed by the opposite party was defective causing great damages to the complainant which was not redressed by the opposite party.  So we find that there is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party.

          The complainant has not produced any document to show that he had paid Rs.9 lakhs to the opposite party.  No documents have been produced in order to prove regarding the disconnection and reconnection of the electricity from KSEB.  Again there is no document before us to prove that the complainant had to spend Rs.2,69,000/- to rectify the system and damaged roof.  The only proof of payment is admission of the opposite party in the reply notice that he has already received Rs.5,00,000/- from the complainant.  So any further amount is not payable to the complainant.  Hence we allow the complaint as follows.

O R D E R

1. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) with interest 9% from 15-06-2015 ie. the date of partial installation of plant till realization.
2. Opposite party is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) as compensation.

Order shall be complied with within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of Order.If not complied as directed, the amount of compensation will carry 9% interest till realization.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27^th day of   November,  2021.

Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-

Sri. K.M. Anto, Member                 Sd/-

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

A1  -  Lawyers notice dtd.28-05-2020 issued to opposite party

A2 -  Postal receipt dtd.28-05-2020

A3 – Postal AD card.

A4 – Copy of reply notice dtd.08-06-2020 issued by opposite party to petitioner

Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party

Nil

                                                                                        By Order

                                                                              Senior Superintendent