BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.155 of 2019

      Date of Instt. 13.05.2019

      Date of Decision: 05.01.2023

Jagtar Singh Bangar S/o Sh. Gurdas Ram Ward No.12, Garhshankar, Distt. Hoshiarpur.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Mr. Vishal Amar Rishi Manager of M/s Embolden Solar          Ladhewali Road Rama Mandi Jalandhar.

2.       Smt. Nidhi Sharma Prop. of M/s Embolden Solar, Ladhewali Road Rama Mandi Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       None for the Complainant (Presence of complainant                          exempted.)

                   Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 & 3.

                   (OP No.1 join proceedings.)

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that a domestic On Grid Solar System with 30% subsidy by PEDA and MNRE was agreed to be installed at his house by M/s Embolden Solar, Jalandhar to save the electricity bill as well as curve the environmental pollution. For this purpose, India Mart, a concern selling all types of products on retail and wholesale has recommended him the name of M/s Embolden Solar, Jalandhar and sent the few contacts and addressee on emails including of M/s Embolden Solar located in Jalandhar. A call was received from Embolden Solar, Jalandhar. On 01.11.2018, Sh. Vishal Amar Rishi, the Manager of the company/firm and Sh. Deepak Kumar one of the sale executives arrived at his house. They agreed to install the 10 PV panels of Waree Brand having 325 watt capacity each with a Growat PCU (inverter) including the cost of Net Meters to be supplied by PSPCL for a total cost of Rs.1,80,000/- including the GST. When asked for the quotation, they simply provided him a written specification on a plain paper and assured him to install the whole system only within one week and the bill will be given after installation of the complete system. Then, Sh. Vishal Amar Rishi, Manager of the company/firm, demanded a cheque of Rs.90,000/- as advance/token money. A cheque No.511352 dated 02.11.2018 was issued favouring M/s Embolden Solar, Jalandhar in good faith and its payment was also credited to their account on 03.11.2018. Having waited for about 6-7 days, the complainant inquired them about the fate of arrival of all the materials like PV Panels, Inverter etc, but Mr. Vishal Rishi straightway refused to deliver the items and demanded Rs.72,000/- more, stating that without the reeipt of 90% of agreed amount they will not dispatch all the items. The complainant still complied and asked them to collect the cheque of Rs.72,000/- and handover him the quotation. On 17.11.2018, they handed over him the quotation dated 16.11.2018. They collected the cheque No.174650 dated 17.11.2018 for Rs.72000/- and realized its payment on 19.11.2018. Then he requested him to allow two days more to deliver the items at his home and assured him to complete the installation process of the system within two days.        

2.                The technicians came on 20.11.2018 with 10 solar panels of 320 watt each instead of 325 watt as agreed, thereby totaling 3200 Watt instead of the agreed 3250 Watt with a structure stand. Moreover, these panels were of Adani brand instead of Waaree. When asked about the delivery of the remaining material like Solar Inverter, they told that they'll bring them on the next day. But they didn't come on the next day. The complainant had to wait until 04.12.2018 when their technical mechanics actually arrived alongwith Mr. Vishal Rishi, the manager of the firm. They worked up to 6.30 P.M. So, due to lack of time they could only partially install the system. They assured him that they'll come again on 05.12.2018 to complete the remaining assured installation process. But they did not come on 05.12.2018 or afterward. When asked, Mr. Vishal Rishi again started demanding the remaining money. He told him that the remaining work is yet to be completed, so complete it and take the balance payment, and also assured him for of remaining amount. The OP assured him for payment of the remaining sum by cash or cheque as soon as the remaining 2-3 hours work is completed and hand over the invoice/other papers (like maintenance (AMC) of 5 and 25 years). After that Mr. Vishal Rishi not attended a single call from him. Lacking any choice, he had to email them. When he didn't hear from them, the complainant taken up the matter with their supplier IndiaMart on 06.12.2018 and 06.03.2019 vide complaint ID No 2780939, having service/complaint centre at Dehradun and registered office at Noida. IndiaMart has tried to settle the issue so many times and also conveyed me the outcome of the complaint via telephone. But till date no positive response came from Embolden Solar Jalandhar. Lastly, on 26.12.2018, IndiaMART asked him to send Email once again to Embolden Solar and CC to them for assuring for the payment. The complainant emailed again on 26.12.2018 for assuring the remaining payment if any, but till date no reply received from them for settling the issue. However, on 29.01.2019 he deputed Sh. Deepak Kumar executive of Embolden Solar to settle the issue. He promised to complete all the remaining work within one week and asked for Rs.7000 against the remaining amount. The complainant transferred Rs.7000 only to Deepak's account having no faith in Vishal Amar Rishi's commitment. So total amount of Rs.169000 ( 90000 + 72000 + 7000) was paid to them. The remaining work to be completed is mentioned below:-

A.      Configuring of WIFI in the PCU Inverter.

Remaining papers to be submitted for making payment to be paid to Embolden Solar:-

B.      Handing over of 25 year maintenance and guarantee agreement          alongwith invoice bill.

C.      Copy of certified NGO/Solar empanelled agency approved by PEDA/MNRE for claiming the subsidy of 30% of total project     cost.

D.      Complete the online installation report for joint verification      report by PSPCL and PEDA.

                   The OP is having the malafide intention for cheating him and incurs the financial loss of Rs.51,975/- as subsidy 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 either to complete remaining installation work and handover the papers as mentioned above B, C and D alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of the present litigation or refund of the entire amount of Rs.1,69,000/- paid to him alongwith interest at the market rate with the compensation of Rs.151975/-=51975 + 100000/- i.e. subsidy and compensation in lieu of physical pain, mental agony and trauma.

3.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, but despite service OP No.1 failed to appear and ultimately OP No.1 was proceeded against exparte. Thereafter the OP No.1 joined the proceedings subject to condition that only argue the case and have no right to file written statement and to lead any evidence. OP No.2 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2. The complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. As such, he is not entitled to the relief. The OP No.2 is the owner of the firm M/s Embolden Solar, who was not made party in the present complaint. She moved application for impleading her as party, which was allowed and the OP No.2 has come forward to refute the false claim of the complainant. It is further averred that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the Commission. The complainant has concealed the fact as to when, the panel was installed and when it started working. The complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. Under the garb of the present complaint, the complainant wants to extort money. As per PEDA Rules and Regulations, subsidy is only provided when the consumer applies through Government approved vendor. But in the present case, the consumer himself filed the subsidy claim, which was not permissible as such, the same could not be granted. There is no role or responsibility of the OP No.2 in this regard. The fact was brought to the knowledge of the consumer by the OP No.1 but the consumer insisted for the work in his own style. The consumer himself applied at PEDA website for solar power plant under Net Metering Policy. Subsidy scheme is launched by Government to promote use of solar power. It is further averred that the complaint filed by the complainant is sheer abuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed. The same has been filed with malafide intentions in order to extort money under the garb of the Act. On merits, the factum with regard to availing the services by the complainant is admitted, 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 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 complainant and counsel for the OPs very minutely.

7.                It is admitted fact that there was an agreement on 02.11.2018 between complainant and the OP for the installation of the 10 PV panels of Waaree Brand having 325 watt capacity each with a Growatt PCU (Inverter) including the cost of Net Meters to be supplied by PSPCL for a total cost of Rs.1,80,000/- including the GST. The grievance of the complainant is that the technicians of OP came on 20.11.2018 with solar panels of 320 watt each instead of 325 watt as agreed with a structure stand and these panels were of Adani Brand and were not of Waaree Brand. The complainant has alleged that the OP had installed the system partially, but they did not turn up despite agreeing and promising him to come again to complete the remaining installation process. It is not disputed that the complainant had given a cheque of Rs.90,000/- to the OP on 02.11.2018 and again on 17.11.208 a cheque of Rs.72,000/- was also handed over to the OP. The complainant has proved on record Ex.C-1, the emails showing the conversation and contacts and addresses of the complainant as well as the OP. Ex.C-2 is the quotation proved by the complainant. This quotation was issued by the OP which includes the Makes for plant i.e. agreement as alleged by the complainant in his complaint. This shows the work to be done by the OP including the configuration, earthing kit, electrical accessories etc. This document is consisting of three pages showing the agreement between the parties and showing the entire process to be completed by the OP for the installation of the solar system. Net payable amount as per this document and as per the parties was Rs.1,80,000/- and PV modules was 325 WP for 10 PCs and the brand was of Adani Brand. Ex.C-2 also shows the mode of payment i.e. 50%  of the advance alongwith PO, 40% on working on arrival of all material and 10% after installation. Rs.72,000/- were received by the OP on 20.11.2018. The material reached was modules of Adani Brand and not of Waaree Brand. This fact has been admitted also. It has been alleged by the OP that the 320 watt capacity panel of Adani brand was installed with the consent of the complainant. Though, there is no document on record to this effect, but had there been not any consent, the complainant would not been allowed OPs to install the above panels. Ex.C-3 is the email sent by the OP on 29, January informing the complainant that they are sending their man to complete the remaining work of LA installation and Wi-Fi configuration, then on March 19, 2019 an emails was sent by the complainant to the OP regarding the completion of remaining work and collection of remaining payment. The complainant has proved on record the statement of account Ex.C-4 showing that the amount of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.72,000/- were paid by the complainant to the OP out of Rs.1,80,000/-. The complainant has proved on record number of emails which have been proved as Ex.C-3 (consisting of 8 pages) upto December, 2010 showing the conversation and asking the OP to complete the installation and to apply for subsidy, but to no effect and the issue of the complainant remained unresolved.

8.                The OPs have proved on record the statement of account showing the payment of Rs.72,000/- and Rs 90,000/- received by the OP, which is not disputed, the same has been proved vide Ex.OP2/1. The electricity bill of the complainant has been proved by the OP No.2 as Ex.OP2/2. They have also produced on record the bill Ex.OP2/3 & Ex.OP/4. The bills have been proved as Annexure-Al. The complainant applied for the subsidy and as per Annexure A-2(1), the complainant was informed that the documents in application file bears the wrong meter number and the wrong meter number was allegedly told by the OP to the complainant. The OP sent an email to the complainant Ex.A- 2 (ii) informing that they are sending the documents after correction. Again, the emails were sent to the OP by the complainant, which have been proved as Ex.C-3a to Ex.C-3d (ii) asking them to complete the process, but the issue remained unsolved again. The OP has alleged that the subsidy can be provided only if the consumer applies through government approved vendor. The complainant himself filed the subsidy claim, which was not permissible, therefore the same could not be granted, but this fact is not completely tenable as even if for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that the claim is to be filed by the govt. approved vendor. The OP has not filed the claim rather gave the wrong meter number to the complainant, which fact was admitted by them in an email as discussed above. The balance payment was to be received by the OP as per allegations of the OP, but the complainant had not paid the balance amount, since the work was not completed, therefore, the dispute arose. Whereas the contention of the complainant is that when the OP sent a person namely Deepak Kumar, he paid Rs.7000/- to him, which is reflected in Ex.C-4. Perusal of Ex.C-4 shows that this amount was transferred on 29.01.2019, but it is not proved that this amount was transferred in the account of the OP. The complainant has not examined Deepak Kumar as a witness to prove that Deepak Kumar was their man and the amount of Rs.7000/- were handed over to him for onward payment to the OP. The OP has denied the receipt of payment of Rs.7000/-, therefore it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.7000/- was ever received by the OP.

9.                From the above said facts, it is proved that despite the emails, conversations and letters sent for number of times to the OP, the OP has not completed the work of the complainant as configuration of Wi-Fi was yet to be done. Though, the same was to be done after receipt of the all balance payment, but the OPs have not cared to reply all the emails of the complainant and to comply with the agreement executed by them. If the complainant had failed to do his duty, then the OP had number of remedies to avail, but this is not fair to harass the person by not completing the work. Giving the wrong meter number is also one of the reason to show that this was unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The complainant had to suffer the loss of subsidy due to submission of wrong meter number. Now the PEDA site is disabled therefore no online submission of subsidy paper can be done. Though, the correction was done later on as per Ex.A2(iii) and thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed.

10.              In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to complete remaining installation work which included configuration of Wi –Fi and handover the papers as mentioned in complaint i.e. B, C and D. The complainant is directed to pay the balance amount on the same day when the installation is complete and papers are handed over to him. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.35,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment. 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.

11.              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     

05.01.2023         Member                          Member           President