BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.154 of 2021

      Date of Instt. 12.04.2021

      Date of Decision: 29.08.2022

Dr. Bhagat Singh Age 72 years r/o H. No.5, Vasant Vihar Ext. Jalandhar, Punjab…144003 (M. No.9872005095) Email ID:-singhb4449@gmail.com.

..........Complainant

Versus

M/s Embolden Solar. Mr. Vishal Rishi Prop. Embolden Solar Opposite Joginder Dhodhi House, Village Chohak Kalan, Hoshiarpur Road, Jalandhar Punjab 144007 (M. No.8837645416, 8437429495) E-mail ID:embolden solar @ gmail.com

….….. Opposite Party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)                                

Present:       Complainant in Person.

                   Sh. Pankaj Kumar, Adv. Counsel for OP.

Order

Dr. HarveenBhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant had engaged the OP for installing l3KW Rooftop Solar system at his residence for a total cost of Rs.1,70,000/-. The complainant engaged the OP based on its promise that about Rs.48,000/- will be paid by Punjab Energy Development Agencies (PEDA) as subsidy to the complainant upon submission of completion report of the project by Vishal Rishi. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- as advance and upon receipt the OP applied for necessary approvals and got the same from PEDA on 06.09.2018 and PSPCL for solar meter. Thereafter before the installation was completed, to the complainant extreme disappointment the OP insisted that a further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- be paid as advance which caused huge inconvenience and severe mental stress to the complainant. Left with no other choice, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.90000/- by 07.12.2019 and thereafter the OP deliberately delayed the installation process and stopped responding to calls which was finally completed on 19.09.2020 that too only after the intervention of police official. To the complainant’s utter shock and disappointment, the OP submitted certain bills totaling to a sum of Rs.52,300/-. The OP has also not provided any proof of submission of necessary papers for release of subsidy from PEDA as promised and neither has it handed over warranty cards of the installed equipment. Further, upon inspection it was found that the OP has installed 2.925 KW panels with peak power generation of only 2.620 KW which is far below the agreed 3.000 KW resulting in huge financial loss and mental stress to the complainant. The OP has caused huge financial loss and mental agony to the complainant by deliberately delaying installation, not installing equipment of agreed brand i.e. luminous, thus acting contrary to the terms agreed. Since the complainant has tried to contact the OP via whatsapp and phone calls but OP never responded, but it failed to provide any resolution and made no effort to rectify the deficiency in promised services which is indeed regrettable and highly unprofessional and as such, the present complaint has been filed by the complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OP, who filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the title of the complaint is defective and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. Vishal Rishi is not the Proprietor of the firm, rather he is only Manager. Smt. Nidhi Rishi is the Proprietor of the firm. It is further averred that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The proprietor of the firm is the necessary party in the present complaint. The present complaint is not maintainable. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 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 complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The true facts of the case are that the complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,70,000/- for rooftop of solar system and also agreed to pay advance payment in full and final. Thereafter, the OP was to install the panel. After installation of the system, the OP had to submit the report to PEDA and thereafter, the subsidy was to be paid to the complainant. But the complainant did not pay the amount as per schedule, as such, the OP could not install the system as per schedule and PEDA was suspended in the year 2019 and the same was taken over by PSPCL in the 2020. The case was applied for in the year 2019 during the time, when it was governed by PEDA but the installation took place in the year 2020, when PSPCL had taken over the same. The complainant moved a false complaint to the Police in this regard. Even after installation of the panel, a sum of Rs. 30,006/- is outstanding against the complainant, which he has not paid to the OP. 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. The OP is not guilty of any negligence or deficiency in service as alleged. As such, the OP is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed. On merits, all the 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.

3.                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. 

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

5.                We have heard the complainant and counsel for the OP and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by Ld. Counsel for the OP, very minutely.

6.                The complainant has filed the present complaint having grievance with the OP that OP has not installed the solar despite the assurance given by the OP and taking the money in advance from the complainant. The complainant has alleged that he engaged the OP for the installation of 3KW Rooftop Solar system for total cost of Rs.1,70,000/-. In installments, he has paid Rs.1,48,000/-. He has proved on record the ATM slips showing the payment of money to the OP Ex.C-6. He has also produced on record the statement of the account. He has also produced on record the invoices issued by the OP Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4. The case of the complainant is that despite the assurance made by the OP in the year 2019, the OP has not installed nor has paid any heed to the requests made by the complainant. He has proved on record the chatting with the OP Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-7. He has submitted that the OP has not started process for subsidy from PEDA nor has started the solar and made request in rejoinder that the amount given by the complainant Rs.1,48,000/- be refunded to him alongwith subsidy, compensation and litigation expenses.

7.                The OP has stated that the complaint is not maintainable as the complaint has been filed against Mr. Vishal Rishi proprietor, whereas he is not the proprietor of the OP rather Nidhi Rishi is the proprietor, therefore the complaint is bad for non-joinder of the necessary party. It has further been submitted by learned counsel for the OP that the complainant has failed to pay the entire amount of Rs.17,000/- as agreed between them. Till date, a sum of Rs.30,006/- is outstanding against the complainant. The complainant agreed to pay advance payment in full and final, but did not pay the entire amount. He has further submitted that since the complainant did not pay the amount as per schedule, therefore the OP could not install the system as per schedule and moreover PEDA was suspended in the year 2019. Therefore, no subsidy process could be started. Now in the year 2020, the same has been taken over by PSPCL and after taking over the charge by PSPCL, the installation took place in the year 2020. The complainant also moved false complaint to the police against the OPs. Since, the complainant has failed to make the entire payment, therefore, the raw material could not be purchased and after the purchase of the raw material only the complainant was entitled to subsidy from PEDA. He has further submitted that the OP has not received any cash payment of Rs.8000/- as alleged by the complainant nor the same has been proved by the complainant. He has further submitted that there is no negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the complainant. The complainant has not produced on record the compromise on the basis of which the installation of the panel was done by the OP. The complainant has concealed the material facts from the Commission. The panel was delayed because of the non-cooperation and non-payment and late payment by the complainant. Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the OP, the complaint be dismissed.

8.                Regarding the maintainability, the OP has alleged that Nidhi Rishi is the proprietor of the OP and not the Vishal Rishi, therefore the complaint is not maintainable. No document has been filed on record by the OP to show that Nidhi Rishi is the proprietor of the firm. If Vishal Rishi was not concerned or was not representing the firm, then under which capacity the OP i.e. Vishal Rishi agreed to install the solar panel. No such objection was ever taken before the police that Vishal Rishi is not the proprietor. The bills Ex.C-1, Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 nowhere show that Nidhi Rishi is the proprietor of the OP, even Vishal Rishi as per the submission of the complainant talked with the complainant through chattings in Whatsapp. Since, no document has been proved on record to show that Nidhi Rishi is the proprietor and the Vishal Rishi has no concerned with the OP, therefore it cannot be said that the complaint is not maintainable.

9.                 It is not disputed that the OP agreed to install the roof top solar system in the house of the complainant for Rs.1,70,000/-. From the documents produced by the complainant Ex.C-5 and Ex.C-6 and Ex.OP-1, it is proved that the complainant has paid Rs.1,40,000/- to the OP in installments. As per Ex.C-5, Ex.C-6 and Ex.OP-1, the first installment of Rs.20,000/- was made on 06.06.2019. The amount of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid to the OP till 07.12.2019. As per the submission of the OP, Rs.30,006/- were due to the complainant, but he has not paid the same. The OP has issued the invoice of the amount on 07.08.2020, 18.08.2020 and 30.07.2020. These invoices have been proved as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3 issued by the OP. Admittedly, the payment of Rs.1,40,000/- was paid till 12/2019. As per the chattings between the complainant and the OP Ex.C-5, the complainant was continuously talking with the OP and was requesting to install the panel. The complainant has requested number of times to the OP as to why they are not responding to his calls and they are not installing the panel. In reply to the messages for not answering his call and for not responding to the calls of the complainant, the OP has made false and vague excuses, which is clear from Ex.C-5, the chatting. The OP has been asking the complainant to wait and the complainant has specifically mentioned that the OP is troubling others and making mockery of others. Though, the parties have alleged that the complainant moved an application to the police, but no complaint or compromise has been produced on record by any of the parties, but it is clear from the chattings that till the end of Janurary, 2020, the panel was not installed despite taking money of Rs.1,40,000/- by the OPs and the same was installed only after the complaint was filed by the complainant before the police as admitted by the OP. As per the admission and the plea taken by the OP in the written statement, the process was not completed as the amount of Rs.30,006/- was to be given by the complainant to the OP. The OP has not produced on record any document to show that which raw material was to be purchased for the completion of the process. The OP has not produced on record any document to show that the PEDA was suspended in the year 2019 and the same was taken over by PSPCL in the year 2020 as alleged by the OP. It has been admitted by the OP that the installation was to be done in the year 2019, but that has taken place in the year 2020, when the PSPCL had taken over the same, but no document is there on the file to prove this fact. Merely, on the ground that the complainant has not made the balance payment of Rs.30,006/-. Therefore, the solar was not installed and the process was not completed, itself shows that there was deficiency in service on the part of the OP as despite taking Rs.1,40,000/- i.e. major amount from Rs.1,70,000/-, the OP has made the complainant to suffer for more than one year. No document has been filed by the OP to show that the complainant was to make the full and final payment in advance. Despite taking the major amount, the OP did not install the panel, therefore it cannot be believed that the OP shall complete the installation process after taking the entire amount. The OP has denied the receipt of Rs.8000/- in cash and there is no document on the file to prove that Rs.8000/- were given by the complainant to the OP in cash. Therefore, this fact has not been proved. The complainant is senior citizen of 72 years of age. The OP has not responded to the calls of the complainant and the formality of installation of the panel was done only after the complaint was filed by the complainant as admitted. It has not been proved by the OP that the false complaint was filed by the complainant before the police. No application was ever moved before PEDA/PSPCL for the subsidy. This is clear cut unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Thus, the complainant is entitled for the relief.

10.              In the light of above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OP is directed to complete the installation process of 3KW Roof Top Solar System at the residence of the complainant and set the same in working condition and also move an application to PEDA/PSPCL for the subsidy to the satisfaction of the complainant and the complainant is directed to make the balance payment of Rs.30,006/- to the OP at the time of moving the application to PSPCL for subsidy against receipt or bill. The OP is further directed to complete the process within two months from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The OP is further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment 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.

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     

29.08.2022         Member                          Member           President