BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.51 of  2021

      Date of Instt. 03.02.2021

      Date of Decision: 17.01.2023

Mr. Balvir Singh son of Sh. Inder Singh, resident of Village Karah, Tehsil Shahkot, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ambota, Una,   Himachal Pradesh 177205, through its Branch Manager     Pushpinder Prashar.

2.       M/s Gupta Tractor Mill Store, Old Mandi Road, Kapurthala     through its authorized Distributor Baldev Raj Gupta.

3.       M/s A. S. Enterprises, Bagrian Road, Dhuri-148024 Punjab.

4.       Sh. Navjot Pal Singh Randhawa, I. A. S. Chief Executive        Officer/Managing Direcotr PEDA, Solar Passive Complex, Plot No.1 & 2, Sector 33-D, Chandigar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Sh. R. P. S. Bhullar, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. Pankaj Arora, Area Sales Manager for OP No.1.

                   OPs No.2 & 3 exparte.

                   Mr. Anirudh Gupta, Asstt. Manager on behalf of OP No.4.

Order

Dr. HarveenBhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OP No.1 is running the business of design and facilitate the installation on a turnkey basis of a rooftop solar photovoltaic power generation system at the sites of customers and the OPs No.2 and 3 are the authorized dealers of the OP No.1. The complainant had contacted the OP No.3 for the installation of solar system in his house, situated at Lohian Khas and accordingly, the OPs No.2 & 3 after conducting survey of the site, approved the same. The solar system was installed in the house of the complainant on 02.04.2019 by the OP No.3 and as per the demand of the OPs an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- was paid by the complainant to the OP No.3. At the time of quotation given by the OP No.3 and making payment of the bill amount for Rs.1,80,000/- by the complainant, the OP No.3 clearly stated to the complainant that an amount of Rs.60,000/- shall be returned/paid back to the complainant as subsidy given by Govt. After that the complainant had requested the OPs many times for the repayment of the amount of subsidy to the complainant but the OPs No.2 & 3 failed to pay the same and even no satisfactory reply has been given by the OPs to the complainant till today, moreover, the OPs have no right to withheld the amount of subsidy which is right of the complainant for an indefinite period. The OPs are also liable to pay the amount of subsidy of Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest on the said amount. This act and conduct of the OPs caused a great mental cruelty to the complainant. The complainant is very much harassed, humiliated and given mental agony and physical harassment on the part of the OPs by not refunding the amount of subsidy on the amount paid by the complainant for purchase of solar system and grabbed the amount of Rs.60,000/- of the complainant and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to refund of subsidy amount i.e. Rs.60,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum from the date of purchase of solar system till the date of actual realization of the amount and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss etc. caused to the complainant alongwith Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OPs No.2 & 3 failed to appear and ultimately OPs No.2 & 3  were proceeded against exparte, whereas OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint filed by the complainant is false, wrong, baseless, not maintainable and is bad in law and has been filed only for the purpose of tarnishing the goodwill of the answering OP as well as to harass them. It is further averred that the complaint is a peculiar case of suppression of truth and material facts wherein the complainant with ulterior motives and for making unlawful personal gains at the cost of the answering OP has tried to conceal the true and correct facts which are material for the adjudication of the present alleged issues of the complaint. It is further averred that the present complaint is misconceived and not maintainable, in as much as, by means of the present complaint, the complainant is seeking a claim of an alleged amount of Rs.60,000/- towards the refunds of subsidy to be provided by Op No.4 on the purchase of a solar system. Further, since no grievance or claim has been made by the complainant on account of performance of said solar system which was manufactured by the answering OP therefore, admittedly there is no deficiency in service by the answering OP. The present complaint therefore lacks the cause of action against the answering OP and therefore, is liable to be dismissed at the very outset and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                OP No.4 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint filed by the complainant is bad both in terms of Dejure and Defacto and hence is not maintainable. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is based on conjectures and surmises and hence no reliance can be placed on the same. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the very outset. The complaint filed by the complainant qua the answering OP is baseless without there being any cogent reasoning to the same and hence is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. The complainant is stopped from filing this complaint by his own acts and conduct and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed at the very outset with costs. The complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands and has concealed the material truth. The complainant has wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission by way of the instant complaint, wherein the complainant has present false/frivolous/twisted facts. Hence, the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed at the very outset. It is further averred that the answering Respondent being a nodal agency till 2018, every year through e-tendering, invited for applications qua empanelment, from the Manufacturers/System integrators/bidders for rooftop grid connected SPV Power plants at Chandigarh for 1KWP upto 500 KWP Subsequently, through the bidding process and subsidy @ 30% has to be released to consumer/beneficiary/applicant, subject to the receipt of the subsidy amount from MNRE, GOI on the basis of MNRE benchmark price or PEDA approved rates, after getting the project commissioned at their premises. After the installation and commissioning of SPV Power plant, the applicant is mandated to inform PEDA for its verification. The verification report along with joint commissioning report shall be forwarded to MNRE, GOI for release of subsidy. The subsidy as and when received from MNRE, GOI shall be released to applicant by PEDA. Accordingly, the consumer/applicant/beneficiary visits the ibid website of the answering Respondent, in order to choose an agency from whom the beneficiary wishes to get the solar power project installed at the premises from the list of empanelled agencies with the answering Respondent, which has been published on the website. Subsequently, the beneficiary on its own contacts and get the required solar power plant commissioned/installed from the vendor/agency chosen from the list of the empanelled vendors with the answering OP. Thereafter, the beneficiary applies online for release of subsidy of PEDA alongwith work completion report after duly verified from PSPCL. Further, after examining the Application form along with the documents, the Nodal agency- PEDA, through its technical representative inspects the solar plant physically by visiting the premises in order to ensure that the plant has been commissioned and meets the mandates/requirements as per the guidelines of MNRE, GOI. Subsequently, the scanned copy of documents submitted with the PEDA is uploaded on the MNRE website, for the release of subsidy to the beneficiary, through PEDA. However, the documents uploaded on the MNRE website are solely dependent upon the submission of the documents with PEDA by the beneficiary and vendor. It is pertinent hereto mention that the answering Respondent in order to get subsidy released, sends the documents to MNRE. Subsequently, the MNRE after scrutinization of the submitted documents releases the capital subsidy which is distributed among the beneficiaries accordingly. It is further averred that as per the conceded case of the Complainant, the Complainant, had applied for setting up of 3 KWp Rooftop Solar Power Plant under Net Metering policy at the residence of the Complainant on 04.04 2019 on its own as per his choice, had contacted and selected OP No.1 & 2 for getting the SPV in question installed at his premises at Jalandhar, without their being any privity with the answering respondent in this regard. It is further averred that while applying for the above mentioned project, the complainant had been duly informed by the answering respondent about the unavailability of subsidy/Central Financial Assistance from MNRE, GOI while suggesting the complainant to check from the website i.e. www.solarpunjab.com for more information regarding availability of the subsidy as the availability/release of subsidy is totally attributable to MNRE, GOI. The answering respondent being a Nodal Agency functioning under the guidelines of MNRE, GOI distributes the subsidy among the beneficiaries on receipt of the same through MNRE, GOI. In the case of the complainant, the complainant did not get the solar project installed through an empanelled vendor of the answering OP-PEDA as the answering OP did not float any tender in this regard for the year 2019-20. Therefore, the answering OP is not liable to pay the complainant any amount of subsidy. On merits, it is admitted that the answering OP is a nodal agency, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

4.                Rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1 and OP No.4 filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement. 

5.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by the complainant and OP No.4 very minutely.

7.                It is admitted fact that the complainant had contacted the OPs No.2 & 3 for the installation of the solar system in his house situated at Lohian Khas. It is also admitted that the complainant purchased the solar system for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- by making the payment of the said amount to the OPs No.2 & 3. It is also admitted fact that the OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the solar system installed in the house of the complainant. The grudge of the complainant is that the OP No.2 and 3 promised the complainant to return/pay back the subsidy of Rs.60,000/- to be given by the government and after the installation of the solar system, he requested the OP number of times for the return of the amount of subsidy, but OPs No.2 & 3 never returned the same. The complainant has proved on record Ex.C-1, which is the e-bill showing that the solar system of the complainant has been registered with the PEDA and he has got installed the solar system for Rs.1,80,000/- including the CGST and SGST. As discussed above, all these facts have been admitted and proved by the complainant.

8.                The complainant has not alleged anywhere that the performance of the solar system is not proper or there is any manufacturing defect nor there is any allegation against the OP No.1, who is, the manufacturer of the solar panels and systems. OP No.3 is exparte and OP No.4 is the govt. department of PEDA. This department registered the solar system in their system and is being represented by the official of the department. The authority letters are on record. OP No.4 has admitted that the solar system of the complainant was registered in their system as per Ex.C-1. The OP No.4 has proved on record the procedure to be adopted while installing the solar system and applying for the subsidy. Ex.R4/4 is the document showing the subject approval for installation of Roof Top Solar power plant under Net Metering and this shows that the plant of the complainant has been approved. On Page No.3 of this document, there is a special note informing to the complainant that ‘there is no subsidy/Central Financial Assistance available from MNRE, GOI i.e. Govt. of India. Before installation of the roof top solar plant, it is suggested that you may please check from website regarding the availability of subsidy’. As per this document, it was informed prior handed that there is no subsidy available at the time the plant of the complainant was registered. The OP No.4 has further stated in their written statement that the complainant has got installed the solar plant system through un-empanelled vendors, who are, OP No.2 & 3. Though, it has been alleged that now at present the OPs No.2 & 3 have been empanelled under the PEDA, but it is admitted fact that at that time, they were not empanelled vendor. The complainant has alleged that he was never informed about letter Ex.R4/4. It was the duty of the OP No.2 & 3 to inform the complainant that no subsidy is available at the time when the approval was applied for the installation of Roof Top Solar Power Plan. There is no document on the file to prove that the subsidy of Rs.60,000/- as alleged was agreed to be returned to the complainant by the OP No.2 & 3, though earlier the same was available as per submission of OP No.4. The OPs No.2 & 3 made false promise and caused mental harassment to the complainant, which is deficiency in service. It is proved that both the OPs No.2 & 3 have received the payment, but they have made false promises and have not explained the true facts to the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs No.2 & 3 and accordingly, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

9.                In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs No.2 & 3 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

10.               Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj     

17.01.2023         Member                          Member           President