DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 27th day of June 2024
Filed on: 19/07/2021
PRESENT
Shri. D.B. Binu President
Shri. V. Ramachandran Member
Smt. Sreevidhia T.N. Member
C.C. No. 237/2021
COMPLAINANT
Joy Peter James, S/o. Elavunkal Peter James, Elavunkal House, 44/3370 A, Rose Lane, Behind PWRAD 33, Palarivattom P.O., Kochi-682 025.
(Rep. by Adv. Nelson J. Manayil, Infant Jesus Building, High Court of Kerala, Pin 682 031)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTY
- Saffron Sun Energy, Near St. Sebastian Chapel, 24/252 A, Manjummal P.O., Ernakulam-683 501, rep. by its Managing Director Thomson Thomas.
- Thomson Thomas, Near St. Sebastian Chapel, 24/252 A, Manjummel P.O., Ernakulam-683 501.
(Rep. by Adv. Dhanesh Kumar K.S., Kanakath Parambil (H), Chittoor Road, Cochin-18)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B. Binu, President:
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was lodged under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant constructed a new house on property transferred by his father and decided to install an On-Grid and Off-Grid Solar system to reduce energy bills. The opposite parties, experienced in solar system installations, contacted the complainant, promising a high-quality system with a 25-year onsite replacement guarantee for solar panels and inverters and a 10-year guarantee for batteries. An agreement was made on 27th February 2021 for the installation, with the complainant paying Rs. 7,55,000/- and only Rs. 18,865/- remaining to be paid upon completion. However, the opposite parties failed to deliver on their promises, leading to deficiencies in service and unmet commitments.
2. Notice:
The notice to the opposite parties was sent by the commission. Despite accepting the notice, the opposite party did not file their versions within the stipulated time. Consequently, they are set ex parte.
3. Evidence:
The complainant submitted an ex-parte proof affidavit along with 12 documents, marked as Exhibits A1 to A12. The report of the expert commissioner is marked as Exhibit C1.
Exhibit A1: Original power of Attorney.
Exhibit A2: Notarized copy of the Invoice dated 27th February 2021 for Rs. 7,73,865/- of Saffron Sun Energy (four pages).
Exhibit A3: Email communication dated 12th April 2021 to Thomson Thomas of Saffron Sun Energy (three pages).
Exhibit A4: Email communication dated 14th April 2021 to D B Dixon batteries (three pages).
Exhibit A5: Email communication dated 14th April 2021 to Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (two pages).
Exhibit A6: Email communication dated 17th April 2021 to Canara Bank, Palarivattom Branch (two pages).
Exhibit A7: Legal Notice dated 29th April 2021 issued by Advocate Prashant Jaiswal, Lucknow to the Opposite Party (three pages).
Exhibit A8: Legal Notice dated 11th June 2021 received from Advocate Dhanesh Kumar K S (counsel of the Opposite Party) by the Complainant (two pages).
Exhibit A9: Reply to Legal Notice dated 26th June 2021 issued by Advocate Nelson J Manayil to the Counsel of the Opposite Party and Thomson Thomas of Saffron Sun Energy (six pages).
Exhibit A10: Copy of the Aadhaar Card.
Exhibit A11: Copy of Electricity Rules for 2023 and the statement obtained from the KSEB Website.
Exhibit A12: Original of the Invoice dated 27th February 2021 for Rs. 7,73,865/- of Saffron Sun Energy (four pages).
4. Points for Analysis:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite party?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
iv) Costs of the proceedings, if any?
5. The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case, as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant, having entered into an agreement with the opposite party and made payments, is thus a consumer as defined under the Act. Invoice dated 27th February 2021 for Rs. 7,73,865/- of Saffron Sun Energy The receipt evidencing payment to the opposite parties (Exhibit A-2) supports this.
The complainant initiated legal action to seek redress for the deficiencies in service and the engagement in unfair trade practices by the opposite parties.
A Brief Analysis of Expert Commissioner Report
The expert’s report (Exhibit C1) provides several key findings:
- The current system does not measure the solar energy generated (Page 3, Answer A.8).
- The system lacks grid connectivity, resulting in no energy injection into the KSEB grid from the solar system (Answer A.9).
- There is no renewable energy meter to measure solar-generated energy (Answer A.10).
- Warranty certificates for the off-grid inverter and battery were unavailable for verification (Page 6, B.3.4).
- Incomplete earthing was observed at the site (Page 5, B.3.1).
- Not all twenty installed solar panels are connected to the battery for energy storage (B.4).
- There is no installation report (B.5).
- The solar roofing system lacks good workmanship, with water leaks observed when water was poured over the rooftop (B.6).
- C10-rated batteries are required for solar applications, but only a sticker on the battery indicates this rating. The battery packaging suggests it is an automatic battery, and there is no equipment nameplate data available to verify storage capacity (B.7).
- An ordinary MCR is provided as a changeover switch between the solar source and KSEB grid. This is technically inadequate and poses a risk of electrical accidents, requiring immediate attention (B.8).
- The GST invoice lacks the necessary data (C.2, Page 7).
- Despite offering an "On Grid with Off Grid Solar Roofing System," no working electrical drawings were available at the site to verify the technical scheme, indicating a flawed concept (B.1, Page 4).
Argument Notes Filed by Sri. Nelson J. Manayil, Counsel for the Complainant
The complainant, a banking professional, is represented by his father Elavunkal Peter James, as per a power of attorney approved by this commission (Exhibit A1). The complainant constructed a new house on property transferred by his father.
After moving into the new house with his family and parents, the complainant decided to install an on-grid and off-grid solar system. The opposite parties, claiming to be experienced service providers, contacted the complainant and committed to installing the solar system (Exhibit A2).
The opposite parties highlighted their credentials in supplying, installing, and commissioning the solar system. They assured the complainant that the system would come with a 25-year onsite replacement guarantee for the solar panels and inverters and a 10-year guarantee for the batteries. The solar installation was chosen to reduce the electricity bill from the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) by using solar energy instead.
The opposite parties conducted an energy consumption study from 15th to 17th February 2021 and then issued a final proposal with an invoice dated 27th February 2021 for Rs. 7,73,865/- (Exhibit A2). Both parties agreed on this amount, and an agreement was signed on 27th February 2021 for the supply, installation, and commissioning of the solar system within one month.
It was further assured by the opposite parties that a mobile application by Luminous would be installed on the complainant's phone to monitor the performance of the solar panels and inverters.
On 26th February 2021, the opposite parties demanded a token amount of Rs. 5,000/- in cash to expedite the payment to KSEB, which was given by the complainant. As per the agreement, work was to start on 1st March 2021 and be completed within a month. The complainant paid Rs. 7,50,000/- between 27th February 2021 and 30th March 2021 by account transfer, leaving a balance of Rs. 18,865/- to be paid after the project's completion. However, despite receiving the payment, the opposite parties did not complete the installation or commission the project.
The deficiencies in the work included the use of low-quality materials causing water leaks, failure to install 12 more solar panels, no action with KSEB for the on-grid facility, lack of guarantees or warranties for panels, inverters, or batteries, and not installing the mobile application for monitoring. Additionally, the opposite parties did not provide essential documents for tax purposes.
These deficiencies caused dissatisfaction, stress, mental agony, and harassment, which were communicated to the opposite parties through emails on 12th April 2021, with copies sent to the manufacturers of the solar panels, inverters, and batteries through the father of the complainant. A legal notice demanding a refund of Rs. 7,55,000/- and compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- was issued on 29th April 2021 and sent by registered post on 18th June 2021 due to COVID-19 lockdown delays (Exhibit A7). Despite these communications, the opposite parties did not fulfil their commitments.
Surprisingly, the complainant received a notice from the opposite parties on 11th June 2021, demanding an additional Rs. 3,09,270.20 and falsely inflating the invoice amount to Rs. 10,64,270.20 (Exhibit A8). The complainant's counsel responded on 26th June 2021, reiterating the correct balance of Rs. 18,865/- and demanding a refund of Rs. 7,55,000/- with 18% interest and compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for stress and deficiencies in service (Exhibit A9).
Despite receiving the reply, the opposite parties did not refund the amount or pay the compensation. The complainant, having no other remedy, approached this commission for redressal.
The opposite parties' attitude was high-handed, and they were unwilling to refund the amount. They are fully responsible for the loss of time, money, mental agony, and deficiencies in service, and must compensate the complainant for these losses and the unfair trade practices.
The complaint was filed within the period of limitation, and the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as the solar system was purchased for personal use, not commercial purposes.
The expert commissioner’s report supports the complainant’s claims, revealing clear deficiencies in the service provided during the installation and commissioning of the solar project. Based on these findings, the opposite party should:
- Refund Rs. 7,55,000/- paid.
- Compensate Rs. 4,00,000/- for deficiencies and inconvenience.
- Cover legal fees of Rs. 50,000/-.
This totals Rs. 12,05,000/- with 18% interest per annum from the date of the last payment (30.3.2021) until realization. The amount should be recovered from the opposite parties personally and from their assets in the interest of justice, equity, and good conscience.
The opposite parties were made ex-parte as they did not file their version within the stipulated time.
Argument Notes Filed by the Opposite Party No: 1 & 2
The case lacks bona fides and is filed without a sustainable basis, aimed at harassing the opposite parties and making an illegal gain. The allegations in paragraphs 1 to 5 are baseless. The opposite parties denied contacting the complainant; it was the complainant who approached them due to their experience. No 25-year guarantee was given for solar panels and inverters, nor a 10-year guarantee for batteries. The installation aimed to reduce electricity bills.
The initial invoice dated 27.02.2021 for Rs. 7,73,865/- was for a basic setup. The complainant then requested additional work, leading to a second invoice dated 30.03.2021 for Rs. 10,64,270/-. The opposite parties informed the complainant that further work would proceed only after realizing payment of Rs. 2,60,208.20/- for the additional work.
Paragraph 7's allegations are denied. No agreement was made based on the initial invoice; the second invoice covered additional work requested by the complainant. The opposite parties did not promise any mobile application for monitoring power generation.
The opposite parties issued a second invoice for additional work as per the complainant's request. The complainant's claim that the opposite parties did not complete the work is denied; they completed almost all work, including additional tasks. The complaint is filed with mala fide intentions, suppressing these facts.
The opposite parties never promised to enable a mobile application. The materials used were of high quality, and the opposite parties supplied all materials as per the invoices. The issue with KSEB was due to the complainant's non-payment. No agreement or offer letter mentioned guarantees and warranties as claimed. The complainant did not provide PAN and Aadhaar details for tax purposes.
The opposite parties did not receive any lawyer notice regarding the work deficiency. It was the opposite parties who sent a notice demanding the balance amount. The complainant's response was filled with false facts and bogus excuses. The opposite parties are not liable for any refund or compensation, as the complainant violated the invoice conditions.
The complainant does not deserve any refund or compensation, as the opposite parties performed all work in good quality, including additional work as per invoice SSE/SP/QL/162/2020-2021, which remains unpaid. The complainant is using the installed solar system, and the only pending work is the KSEB grid connection, delayed due to non-payment by the complainant. There was no unfair trade practice.
The complainant's complaint hides the second invoice and is filed with the intent to cheat and make illegal gains. The opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with costs and request the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs. 3,09,270.20/- with 24% monthly interest from the date of dues.
We have meticulously considered the detailed submissions of both parties, as well as thoroughly reviewed the entire record of evidence, including the argument notes.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. The opposite party's conscious failure to file their written version despite having received the Commission’s notice amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled against them. The case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
Analysis and Legal Reasoning:
A. Maintainability:
The complainant, having entered into an agreement with the opposite party and made payments, qualifies as a consumer under Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The evidence provided, including the invoice dated 27th February 2021 (Exhibit A2), supports this.
B. Deficiency in Service and Negligence:
A Brief Analysis of Expert Commissioner Report
The expert’s report (Exhibit C1) highlights several critical deficiencies in the solar project. It reveals that the system does not measure the solar energy produced and lacks grid connectivity, preventing energy injection into the KSEB grid. Additionally, there is no renewable energy meter, and warranty certificates for key components were unavailable. The site inspection also found incomplete earthing, poor workmanship resulting in water leaks, and that not all installed solar panels are connected to the battery for energy storage.
Furthermore, the report indicates the absence of an installation report and necessary technical drawings, signalling a flawed project concept. C10-rated batteries required for solar applications were improperly documented, and the changeover switch used is technically inadequate, posing safety risks. The GST invoice was found to lack essential data, further underscoring the deficiencies in the service provided.
The expert commissioner’s report (Exhibit C1) substantiates the complainant’s claims, highlighting clear deficiencies in the service provided during the installation and commissioning of the solar project.
In the case of R.C. Rajeshekar vs. Anil Haridass, the Honorable National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), upheld the decisions of the District Forum and State Commission, which directed the petitioner to replace the incorrectly installed solar water heaters with those of the Tata BP make or refund the cost of Rs. 49,000/-. The initial complaint was based on the petitioner installing a different make of solar water heaters than ordered. The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed, and the NCDRC found no grounds for revision under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, thus dismissing the revision petition.
The complainant communicated the deficiencies via email and legal notices (Exhibits A3 to A9), but the opposite parties failed to rectify the issues. The opposite parties' failure to file their written version despite receiving the notice amounts to an admission of the allegations. This stance is supported by the Hon’ble National Commission’s order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The Commission recognizes the profound impact that this ordeal has had on the complainant. The trust placed in the opposite parties to provide a reliable and efficient solar system was egregiously violated, leading not only to financial losses but also to considerable mental anguish and physical hardship. The complainant, a diligent individual who sought to embrace sustainable energy solutions, faced undue stress and inconvenience due to the negligence and unfair practices of the opposite parties. This case underscores the importance of accountability and ethical conduct in business, especially when it directly affects the lives and well-being of consumers. The Commission empathizes with the complainant's plight and acknowledges the courage it took to seek justice in the face of adversity.
We determine that issue numbers (I) to (IV) are resolved in the complainant's favour due to the significant service deficiency and the unfair trade practices on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, the complainant has endured considerable inconvenience, mental distress, hardships, and financial losses as a result of the negligence of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence, the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The opposite parties shall refund ₹7,55,000 (Rupees seven lakh fifty-five thousand only) to the complainant as evidenced by Exhibit A-2 and Exhibit C1.
- The opposite parties shall pay ₹75,000 (Rupees seventy-five thousand only) as compensation for monetary loss, mental agony, and hardship suffered by the complainant. This amount is awarded for the deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, as well as for the mental agony and physical hardships endured by the complainant.
- The opposite parties shall also pay the complainant ₹15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards the cost of the proceedings.
The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for the fulfilment of the above orders, which must be executed within 45 days from the date of receiving this order. Failure to comply with the payment orders under points I and II will result in interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the complaint (19-07-2021) until the date of full payment realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 27th day of June, 2024
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V. Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Forwarded/By Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A1: Original power of Attorney.
Exhibit A2: Notarized copy of the Invoice dated 27th February 2021 for Rs. 7,73,865/- of Saffron Sun Energy (four pages).
Exhibit A3: Email communication dated 12th April 2021 to Thomson Thomas of Saffron Sun Energy (three pages).
Exhibit A4: Email communication dated 14th April 2021 to D B Dixon batteries (three pages).
Exhibit A5: Email communication dated 14th April 2021 to Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (two pages).
Exhibit A6: Email communication dated 17th April 2021 to Canara Bank, Palarivattom Branch (two pages).
Exhibit A7: Legal Notice dated 29th April 2021 issued by Advocate Prashant Jaiswal, Lucknow to the Opposite Party (three pages).
Exhibit A8: Legal Notice dated 11th June 2021 received from Advocate Dhanesh Kumar K S (counsel of the Opposite Party) by the Complainant (two pages).
Exhibit A9: Reply to Legal Notice dated 26th June 2021 issued by Advocate Nelson J Manayil to the Counsel of the Opposite Party and Thomson Thomas of Saffron Sun Energy (six pages).
Exhibit A10: Copy of the Aadhaar Card.
Exhibit A11: Copy of Electricity Rules for 2023 and the statement obtained from the KSEB Website.
Exhibit A12: Original of the Invoice dated 27th February 2021 for Rs. 7,73,865/- of Saffron Sun Energy (four pages).
Opposite party’s Exhibits
Nil
Deposition
Exhibit C1: The Commission Report.
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 237/2021
Order Date: 27/06/2024
