Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 623.
Instituted on : 03.11.2017.
Decided on : 19.01.2022
S.D. College of Education, Village Siwah through its Chairman Rajeev Tayal S/o Shri Hari Om Tayal.
.......................Complainant.
Vs.
- M/S Basil Energetics Private Limited through its Director Dr. Ramarathnam Registered Office: Plot No.2D/1, 6th Street, Sector-3, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Chennai-600098.
- M/S Aston Green Private Limited through its Director, Office at S-4-34, Gandhi Kuteer, R.H.B. Bhiwadi(Rajasthan) Local office at Huda Complex Rohtak.
……….Opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR.SHYAM LAL, MEMBER
Present: Shri Pardeep Goyat, Advocate for the complainant.
Shri Sanjay Sharma, Advocate for the Opposite party no.1.
Shri N.K. Singhal, Advocate for the opposite party no.2.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has placed order for installation of grid connected Roof Top Solar Energy System of BASIL Brand for running of load of 5 numbers of Fans, 8 numbers of LED lights and 1 number of AIR Conditioner 1.5 tons capacity and other solar system vide invoice no.4 dated 12.11.2015 and made payment of Rs.3,96,000/-. The opposite party had also assured for proving a BOSCH Branch cleaning system for cleaning of Solar Panels. The opposite parties had offered 10 years warranty for Solar Module Panels, 3 years warranty for batteries and 2 years warranty for the rest of the system from the date of installation and commissioning of the system at the premises of the complainant. The above mentioned electrical equipments were supplied, installed and commissioned by the opposite parties and process of installation was finished in the month of April, 2016. The above mentioned electrical equipments were tripping frequently and AC was not running on solar energy. Thereafter, the engineers of opposite parties visited the site many times but could not make the system run on solar energy. As soon as the Load was put on the system it tripped and refused to run. Thereafter, the engineers of opposite parties came to site and took away the grid controllers citing configuration issues and assuring that the grid controllers would be redesigned and thereafter the system would be commissioned. The complainant has been repeatedly approaching the opposite parties for the commissioning of the system as per order placed by the complainant but the opposite parties have not heeded to the repeated requests of the complainant. The complainant also requested the opposite party a number of times to desist from its illegal acts and to refund the amount of Rs.3,96,000/- paid as sale consideration for the solar system but to no avail. Hence, this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to refund the price of Rs.3,96,000/- alongwith interest from the date of receipt of alleged amount by the opposite parties till its realization and also to pay an appropriate amount towards compensation for causing harassment and legal costs to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party no.1 in its reply has submitted that the opposite party no.2 i.e. M/s Aston Greens Pvt. Ltd. Rohtak was interested to sell Basil’s Solution in the territory of NCR, Delhi, Chandigarh, Haryana, UP and Punjab. In this context both the parties i.e. opposite party No.1 and 2 signed a Memo of Understanding in July 2014 and both to them bound themselves for certain conditions. As per clause ‘8’ of the MOU, opposite party No.2 Aston Green was required to provide an unconditional Bank guarantee for Rs.25 lacs initially and the same was to be increased to Rs.50 lacs when the sales in all regions increased over time. But opposite party No.2 failed to provide the Bank Guarantee and in the same sequence the answering opposite party No.1 did not issue/provide the letter of appointment as “Authorised Channel Partner” and in this way the purposed channel partner agreement between the opposite party No.1 & 2 was never consummated. On merits, it is denied that the answering respondent no.1 approached the complainant with providing cost effective solar energy solution of the brand of Basil i.e. answering respondent no.1, but no such approach was made to the complainant by the Basil answering opposite party rather these approach might have been made by the Aston Greens opposite party no.2. No order was ever placed by the complainant to the answering respondent no.1 and no said invoice no.4 dated 12.11.2015 nor a payment of Rs.3,96,000/- was ever issued/received by the answering respondent no.1 from the complainant. The system was never supplied, installed or commissioned by the answering opposite party no.1 and same has been done by the Aston Greens. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party no.1.
3. Opposite party No. 2 in his reply has submitted that the manufacturer and warranty provider of the solar equipment sold to the complainant is opposite party no.1 and the answering opposite party was only the local dealer for facilitation of the sale of the solar equipment to complainant. It is also submitted that out of the money received by the answering opposite party, a sum of Rs.2,68,220/- was paid to the opposite party no.1 vide invoice no.INV-1516-006 dated 4.11.2015 and the rest of amount was utilized in payment of local taxes, transportation of equipment from Chennai to Bhiwadi (Rs.26,205/-), transportation from Bhiwadi to Panipat (Rs.15,000/-) and in making payment for conducting survey and installation of the solar system. Thus, about 80% of the amount paid by the complainant was remitted to OP no.1 and other expenditure was incurred as detailed above and the opposite party no.2 is now liable to re-imburse the complete amount paid by the complainant. It is also submitted that the faulty equipments were sent to the opposite party no.1 for repair/replacement on 25.3.2016 through VRL Logistics Ltd. which included 2 solar inverters, 1 solar charge controller, IDU’s PCB card for IIT Delhi, Solar Fan PCB card, ODU’s pcb card and accessory. But the opposite party no.2 has neither returned the defective components nor repaired/replaced them. Hence the opposite party No.2 was rendered helpless in helping the complainant. The system is lying unused at the premises of the complainant. The equipment provided by the opposite party no.1 is having inherent manufacturing defects which even OP No.1 is unable to resolve. Thus, entire liability in the matter is of opposite party no.1 being the manufacturer of the solar equipment. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party no.2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 and closed his evidence on dated 4.9.2019. Ld. Counsel for opposite party no.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R10 and closed his evidence on dated.4.9.2019. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party no.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A and documents Ex.RW2/1 to Ex.RW2/18 and closed his evidence on dated 7.11.2019.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the preset case it is not disputed that as per invoice Ex.C2, complainant had made a payment of Rs.396000/- to the opposite party No.2 for the Roof Top Solar Energy System and the same was got installed in the premises of complainant by the opposite parties. The contention of ld. Counsel for the complainant is that when the system was integrated with the electrical load of the premises of the complainant, the system faulted and refused to run and the engineers at site deputed by the opposite parties could not make it run. The above mentioned electrical equipments were tripping frequently and AC was not running on solar energy. Thereafter, the engineers of opposite parties visited the site many times but could not make the system run on solar energy. Complainant made repeated requests to the opposite parties to refund the price of alleged system but to no effect. On the other hand, contention of ld. Counsel for the opposite party No.1 is that complainant never placed order directly to the opposite party No.1 and no payment was received by the opposite party No.1. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1. It is further contended that both the parties i.e. opposite party No.1 and 2 signed a Memo of Understanding in July 2014 and both of them bound themselves for certain conditions. But opposite party No.2 failed to provide the Bank Guarantee and in the same sequence the answering opposite party No.1 did not issue/provide the letter of appointment as “Authorised Channel Partner” and in this way the purposed channel partner agreement between the opposite party No.1 & 2 was never consummated. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 as per his affidavit has stated that all the cost of solar system has been paid to the opposite party no.1 and only a small part of money was used by the opposite party No.2 in paying for installation of the solar equipment and providing fare, boarding and lodging to engineers sent by opposite party No.1. The only beneficiary of the transaction in dispute has been opposite party no.1, who has sold sub-standard and inherently defective products to complainant under frivolous claims.
7. Hence from the above pleadings, it is proved that the sub-standard and inherently defective products were sold to the complainant by the opposite party No.1 and as such there is manufacturing defect in the solar system in question. The MOU is between the opposite party No.1 & 2 and complainant is not abide by the terms and conditions of the MOU. Regarding the payment of alleged system, it is observed that as per invoice Ex.C3 complainant has made the payment to opposite party no.2 and as per invoices Ex.R2 to Ex.R4 the alleged roof top systems have been purchased by the opposite party No.2 from the opposite party No.1. Hence opposite party No.1 being the manufacturer is liable to compensate the complainant.
8. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to refund the amount of Rs.396000/-(Rupees three lac ninety six thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the present complaint i.e. 03.11.2017 till its realisation and shall also pay a sum of Rs.10000/-(Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant within one month from the date of decision. However, complainant is directed to hand over the alleged Roof Top Solar energy System to the opposite party No.1 at the time of making payment by the opposite party No.1, which shall be got uninstalled by the opposite party no.1 by their own engineer and at their own cost from the premises of complainant.
9. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
19.01.2022.
.....................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member
…………………………..
Shyam Lal, Member
