S     Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

M     Member

1.       The Complainant Sri Venkategowda has filed the complaint against the M/s Taurus Solar System alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. the complainant prayed for an order directing the opposite party to repay the excess amount paid by him i.e, Rs. 25,000/- and to pay damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-  for supply of inferior quality of 10KVA Solar Grid Tie inverter and also to pay a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- having suffered loss of income due to non generation of power from the  date of installation till the date of filing this complaint with cost and other reliefs.

2.      The complainant submitted that he has approached opposite party on 14.10.2015 for purchase of solar power grid tie inverter with standard accessories for the purpose of generation of solar power energy. The opposite party assured to supply good and standard materials. Further, he has paid entire amount of Rs. 12,50,000/- through cash and cheques and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- by availing loan from M/s Bajaj Finance, which was directly credited to the account of the opposite party. The payment has been acknowledged by the opposite party.  By oversight, he has paid an excess amount of Rs. 25,000/- to opposite party. The installation of the unit/ was delayed and caused unnecessary damages to the permanent structure (Roof) on account of improper drilling for fittings. The materials provided was of inferior quality. Further the opposite party has collected  duly signed blank cheques for processing the agreement regarding power purchase by the CHESCOM. However the opposite party has failed to issue the work completion report.

3.     Vide letter dated 05.08.2016 M/s CHESCOM has intimated  him regarding the cancellation of his application dated  23.11.2015 for installation of power station. The opposite party has misused the blank cheques hence criminal case has been filed before the competent court of law, which is pending for adjudication. Hence the complainant alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He also caused a legal notice on 21.05.2018 to opposite party calling upon to complete the work as agreed, but in vain. Hence filed the complaint.

4.     The opposite party represented through his counsel on 27.08.2018, However, the opposite party has  filed its version on 18.07.2019 belatedly, which came to rejected on 24.02.2020.

5.    The complainant filed his examination in chief as part of his evidence with several documents and photographs to prove his contention. The opposite party also lead his evidence by filing affidavit with contentions. Heard the oral arguments of both the counsels.

6.      The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?

2. Whether complainant proves the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the opposite party and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs sought?

3. What order?

7.     Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1:- In the negative

Point No.2:- Does not call for discussion

Point No.3:- As per final order for the following

                                                                         :: R E A S O N S ::

8. Point No.1:- The complainant has entered into an agreement with opposite party on 14.10.2015, for purchases of Solar Power Tie Inverter with standard accessories to generate Solar Power Energy and has paid Rs. 12,50,000/-. However, the power purchase agreement was cancelled by CESCOM vide its letter dated 05.08.2016. The opposite party has carried out his part of agreed work. Despite the same the complainant filed the present complaint against opposite party on 17.07.2018, it after the lapse of more than two years. As per the Provision of section 24-A the complaint ought to have been filed within two years from the date of  arose of  the cause of action. Hence the complaint filed by complaint is not barred by limitation and hence liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. Accordingly point no.1 is answered in the negative.

9. Point No.2:- In view of the above observations, this point does not call for consideration.

10. Point No.3:- In view of the above observations in point no.1, complaint filed by Sri .G.C. Venkategowda deserved to be dismissed. Hence the following:

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is dismissed
2. Furnish the copy of order to the complainant at free of cost.