By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
The complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The complaint in short is as follows:-
1. The complainant noted an advertisement issued by first opposite party company stating that the company is installing Solar Roof Top Power plant with aid of the second opposite party, ANERT a Kerala government undertaking on payment of the price of the product after deducting the subsidies offered by the second opposite party. The complainant remitted Rs.1,00,000/- towards the initial payment and the first opposite party assured that the balance is required to be paid by the complainant after the installation of the solar system purchased by the complainant. But the first opposite party defaulted in taking steps to effect the project even after repeated demands. The complainant remitted Rs.50,000/- as per receipt No.4938 and also another 50,000/- rupees as per receipt number 6257. The complainant remitted Rs.2,000/- to the second opposite party as application fee to include the complainant to the project named “Solar Connect”. The scheme is implemented by the second opposite party. The complainant also remitted Rs.1,000/- to the KSEB for connection solar power to the electric supply line. The first opposite party thereby issued a purchase order on 21/03/2017 stating the total price of the product and particulars as Rs.2,15,000/-.
2. The complainant submit that the second opposite party made the complainant to believe that the first opposite party is one among the competent companies indulged in the field of providing solar devices by circulating a brochure enlisting the name of the first opposite party. The second opposite party being the nodal agency of the Kerala government in promotion of Solar Energy, offered 50% of the total expenses as subsidy and received application seeking the assistance of the second opposite party by paying Rs.2,000/- as the fee for application from the complainant. The second opposite party issued receipt to the complainant for the same for further correspondence. Since the first opposite party failed to perform the undertaking complainant approached the second opposite party and it was learned, the first opposite party will refund the payment made by the complainant. So far not being refunded the amount paid by the complainant, approached this Commission seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs.1,03,000/- along with compensation of 1,00,000/- rupees to the complainant along with cost and other incidental expenses.
3. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties. But opposite party No.1 did not turned up. Hence first opposite party set exparte. The second opposite party duly appeared and filed detailed version.
4. The contention of the second opposite party is that the ANERT is the nodal agency of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), government of India and the nodal agency of the Government of Kerala for the implementation of new and renewable energy programs in the state of Kerala. The role of second opposite party ANERT is to facilitate the beneficiaries of Kerala intending to install solar power plants with Central Financial Assistance and state subsidy if any. The role of ANERT is limited to a facilitator only and further processes are bound by the agreement made between the complainant and the empaneled agency. The cost of installation for the power plant is collected by the selected agency and it is their responsibility to provide operation and maintenance support to the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer of ANERT. The opposite party submitted that ANERT is implementing schemes for Roof top solar power plants as per government of India guide lines. The CFA and state subsidy if any, received is distributed upfront to the beneficiaries as subsidy. To ensure the availability of service providers, Anert had invited expression of interest from the approved channel partners of MNRE for the implementation of the program and had published the list of empanelled agencies. The opposite party started registration process to find out beneficiary for the allotment of subsidy under this program. The opposite party is intimated each and every beneficiary about the actions to be taken to proceed in the scheme. The detailed guide lines list of empanelled agencies with the rates quoted by them and format of work order agreement etc are also published in the website. The beneficiary is free to select any of the agencies for the implementation of the project at his premises based on his choice. The beneficiary after selecting the Agency of his choice shall invite them for a pre installation survey and if the site is feasible, he shall issue a work order and enter in to an agreement with the selected agency. They also required submitting pre installation survey report, copy of work order and agreement executed between the parties to the concerned district officer Anert. Upon completing installation of the power plant, the commencing report along with an under taking of the beneficiary to release the subsidy to the installed agency is also submitted to the district office. On receipt of commissioning report Anert will conduct an inspection for verification of the technical complaints. Then the beneficiary price will be calculated and after deducting the subsidy amount from the actual cost of the system, the subsidy amount provided directly to the empaneled agency. The opposite party submitted that the time lines of installation, payment condition, warranty are to be listed in the agreement executed between the beneficiary and the agency. The beneficiary is paying the cost of the system after deduction the subsidy from the total cost of the system including installation based on the authorization issued 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 . Hence the responsibility of Anert towards the beneficiary is limited to the above extent only. The warranty claims if any need to be settled between the beneficiary and installed agency. The submission of the opposite party the Anert is merely a facilitator of the central financial assistance and state subsidy if any and so the prayer of the opposite party is that the dispute be settled between the complainant and agency selected by them M/s Bunt Solar, Private Limited – the first opposite party.
5. The complainant and second opposite party filed affidavits. The complainant filed documents and they are marked as Ext. A1 to A8. Ext. A1 is a copy of receipt No.4938 issued by first opposite party for Rs.50, 000/-. EXT. A2 is a copy of receipt No. 6257 dated 26/05/2017 for Rs.50, 000/- issued by the first opposite party. Ext. A3 is a copy of receipt issued by second opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A4 is a copy of letter dated 15/03/2017 issued by second opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A5 is purchase order dated 21/03/2017 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A6 is copy of reply dated 15/02/2018 issued by district engineer Anert, Malappuram to one Aboobacker Kizhisseri. Ext. A7 is copy of screen shot of list of Anert empaneled vendors. Ext. A8 is copy of PDF file – list of SBV installations in Kerala by Anert empaneled vendors.
6. Perused affidavits and documents. Heard complainant and second opposite party.
7. The following points arise for consideration:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Relief and cost?
8. Point No.1 &2
The grievance of the complainant is that though he remitted Rs.1,00,000/- towards the payment of Solar Roof top, the opposite parties did not install or implement the project called “Solar Connect”. The complainant remitted Rs.2,000/- to the second opposite party as application fee and also remitted Rs.1,000/-to the K S E B for connection solar power to the electric supply line. The total price of the product was Rs.2,15,000/-. The complainant approached both the opposite parties to implement the project but they did not. So, the complainant approached both opposite parties to refund the deposited amount but it was also vain. The contention of the second opposite party is that they are only a facilitator and on request of the complainant the first opposite party had stated that they will refund the amount to the complainant. But that also so far not complied.
9. There is no dispute regarding the payment of 1,00,000/- rupees towards the cost of the product and also payment of application fee of Rs.2,000/- it is also undisputed fact that the complainant paid 1,000/- towards the K S E B for connecting solar power to the electric supply line. So, the averments in the complaint stand proved through the documents and the affidavit of the complainant. The notice to the first opposite party was issued from the Commission but opposite party not turned up. So, the Commission called the name of first opposite party and set exparte. So the Commission called the name of the first opposite party and set exparte. The contesting second opposite party contended that they are only the facilitator and there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and the second opposite party and so the complainant is not sustainable against second opposite party. But the fact remains admitted through the affidavit of the second opposite part that they received application fee of 2,000/- rupees from the complainant to include his name in the list of beneficiaries’ of the scheme and also admitted that first opposite party is also an approved empanelled vendor of the scheme. The submission of the complainant is that he selected the first opposite party to implement the scheme since his name was empaneled by the second opposite party. So, it is not proper on the side of second opposite party to contend that there is no any sort of responsibility towards the complainant in implementing the scheme. The second opposite party is liable to ensure the credibility of the empanelled vendors of the scheme and also liable to ensure that they are properly implementing the scheme introduced by the central and state governments through providing subsidies.
10. It can be seen that the advance amount was received by the complainant as per Ext. A1 and A2. Ext. A5 is purchase order stating the value of the product as Rs.2,15,000/-. Since the first opposite party totally failed to implement the project is primarily liable to refund the advance received from the complainant. It can be seen that if the scheme was implemented the complainant was eligible for declared subsidy under the scheme. Hence the first opposite party is also liable to pay compensation to the complainant due to deficiency in service and thereby caused mental agony hardships and inconveniences. It can be seen that the complainant selected the first opposite party from the empanelled vendors of second opposite party. So the second opposite party is also liable to the loss and inconveniences caused to the complainant. The commission finds that the first opposite party is liable to refund the amount received by them and also for compensation and cost. The complainant is entitled to realize the amount from the first opposite party. The second opposite party is at liberty to realize the amount from the first opposite party if any has been paid to the complainant as compensation and cost. The commission consider Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the hardship and inconvenience caused to the complainant due to the deficicneny in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled for a cost of Rs.10,000/- from the first opposite party. It is also will be proper to direct second opposite party to take appropriate action against first opposite party for the troubles caused to the beneficiaries under the scheme and also not to repeat the same in future at all. In the light of above fact and circumstances the Commission allows the complainant as follows:-
1) The first Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh rupees only) to the complainant as received from the complainant towards installing solar roof top power plant.
- The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand rupees only) to the complainant towards the compensation on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused mental agony, hardships and inconveniences.
- The first opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand rupees only) to the complainant towards the cost of the proceedings.
- The second opposite party is directed to take appropriate action against
first opposite party to see redressed the grievance of the beneficiaries of the “solar connect” project.
The opposite parties shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled 12% interest for the above said entire amount of Rs.1,60,000/- from the date of filing this complaint till realization .If the first opposite party fails to comply this order within the stipulated time the second opposite party is directed to delete the name of first opposite party from the empanelled list of vendors “solar connect” project still they are containing in the list.
Dated this 31ST day of March, 2022.
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Mohamed Ismayil. C.V, Member PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A8
Ext.A1: Copy of receipt No.4938 issued by first opposite party for Rs.50, 000/-.
Ext.A2: Copy of receipt No. 6257 dated 26/05/2017 for Rs.50, 000/- issued by the first
opposite party.
Ext A3: Copy of receipt issued by second opposite party to the complainant.
Ext A4: Copy of letter dated 15/03/2017 issued by second opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext A5: Purchased order dated 21/03/2017 issued by the first opposite party to the
complainant.
Ext A6: Copy of reply dated 15/02/2018 issued by district engineer Anert, Malappuram to
one Aboobacker Kizhisseri.
Ext A7: Copy of screen shot of list of Anert empanelled vendors.
Ext A8: Copy of PDF file – list of SBV installations in Kerala by Anert empanelled
vendors
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil
MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
Mohamed Ismayil. C.V, Member PREETHI SIVARAMAN.C, MEMBER
