CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,PALAKKAD

Dated this the 16^th July, 2016

PRESENT :  SMT. SHINY.P.R, PRESIDENT

               : SMT. SUMA. K.P, MEMBER   

               : SRI. V.P.ANANTHA NARAYANAN, MEMBER   Date  of filing : 07/5/2014

CC /66/2014

Saleemkumar.M,

S/o.Sheik Moideen,Murikkavu,

West Yakkkara, Palakkad – 678 001                           :        Complainant

(By Adv.K.K.Thankappan)

             Vs

1. M/s.Tata Power Solar System Ltd.,                         :        Opposite parties

    Plot No.78, Electronic City Plaza,

    Hosur Road, Bangalore – 560 100,

    Karnataka

    (By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran)

2. The Director, ANERT,

    P.M.G.Law College Road,

    Vikas Bhavan. P.O,

   Thiruvananthapuram

   (Rep. by authorized person)

O R D E R

By Smt. Suma. K.P, Member,

The complainant herein has registered his name with 2^nd opposite party herein (ANERT) after paying Rs.500/- as beneficiary for the installation of 1 KW Roof top solar power plant.  The 2^nd opposite party is an agency for non – conventional energy  and rural technology, society functioning under the Power Department of  Government of Kerala.  The 2^nd opposite party is the project programmer for facilitation of 1 KW roof top solar power plant  and the 1^st opposite party is empanelled implementing agency under the 2^nd opposite party for supply and installation of 1 KW solar power plant.  On 12/10/2013 the 1^st  opposite party executed and accepted the work order and entered in to an agreement with the complainant as per the terms and conditions set up by ANERT.   As per the agreed contract the 1^st opposite party  was paid Rs.97,715/- being the contract price on 12/10/2013 to install the solar power plant on specified specifications.  Then the 1^st opposite party has to install solar power plant at the complainant’s residence as per the project scheme of ANERT.  The installation of solar plant was completed by the 1^st opposite party on 17/12/2013.  As per the agreement, the work of the supply and installation has to be completed within 45 days of the signing of the agreement.  The complainant alleges that this condition was violated by the opposite parties and when questioned they failed to give a satisfactory reply.  Even though the supply, installation and trial running of the solar power plant was completed on 17/12/2013 by the 1^st opposite party, the system was giving only less output at about 40% than that of the rated capacity. The complainant complained the matter to the 1^st opposite party and they repaired the system on 13/1/2014 but was not successful.  On 17/1/2014 the whole system was out of order (dead -zero output) and the same was verbally informed to the 1^st opposite party and the system was restored on 25/1/2014.  On 14/3/2014  the system again went out of order the complainant informed this to the 1^st opposite party on 15/3/2014 as per the complaint number 141005.  The complainant alleges that the 1^st opposite party doesn’t turned up to repair the system.  Hence the complainant was compelled to sent a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 20/03/2014  and the system was again repaired only on 25/3/2014.  Though the system started working there was no increase in the output received.  Even after, so many repeated repairs the solar plant install could not be used to the intended capacity.  There is a complete lapse on the part of the opposite parties even to repair the system on time when it was completely dead.  Moreover the 1^st opposite party has not issued completion and commissioning report nor any valid guarantee even after a lapse of 4 months as provided in the agreement.  The system provided by the opposite parties does not provide the rated output nor it gives constant voltage as per their manual and it could not be fully utilized.   The complainant submits that due to the irresponsible attitude of the opposite parties the complainant was put to considerable mental torture by wasting time and much financial loss for which the opposite parties are liable to compensate with an amount of Rs.50,000/-  along with the contract price of Rs.97,715/- with interest  at 12% from the date of payment.  The above act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service. 

Notice was issued to the opposite parties  for appearance. Opposite parties  entered appearance and filed their versions.  The 1^st opposite party submits that the amount of Rs.97,715/- is not the cost of the product but the subsidized amount to be paid by the complainant; the actual cost of the product Rs.1,89,977/- and out of the said amount the subsidy comes to Rs.92,262/-.  After deducting the subsidy amount, the amount by the complainant is Rs.97,715/-.  After commissioning of the product and after it becomes functional, the complainant has to issue a satisfaction certificate and then only the 1^st opposite party would be paid Rs.39,000/- by the 2^nd opposite party and Rs.53,262/-by the Ministry of New & Renewable Energy, Govt. of India (herein after referred to as “MNRE”) towards subsidy amount of Rs.92,262/-, benefit of which stands availed by the complainant.  The date of installation mentioned by the complainant in the complaint is not correct and it was installed on 13/12/2013.  It is admitted by the 1^st opposite party that they had installed the product at the complainant’s residence as per the project scheme of the 2^nd opposite party.  As per the terms of the work order, order placement for the product was subject to realization of cheque, and that the applicable purchase order date was supposed to be the actual date of full payment  realization.   The complainant was supposed to provide a flat roof at his residence for mounting of the solar photovoltaic modules, however the roof of the complainant’s residence was an inclined roof and extra effort had to be incurred on the part of the 1^st opposite party in installing the product.  Hence there was some delay in installation, which cannot be said to be due to the acts of the 1^st opposite party and the claim of the complainant is baseless.  The 1^st opposite party was not informed about the non-satisfactory performance of the product and as such they had no information about the fake complaints alleged to have been reported on dates claimed in the complaint.   The complaint made on 15/3/2014 was attended by 1^st opposite party service personnel on 21/3/2014 and it was found to be a minor problem were the product was not working as one of the system fuse had faulted, the fuse was replaced by the service personnel of the 1^st opposite party and the product started functioning properly.  The output generated by the product was verified time and again by the service personnel of the 1^st opposite party and it was found that expected output was being generated and the product was functioning properly.  The completion and commissioning report could not be issued to the complainant as the complainant refused to issue certificate to the 1^st opposite party regarding installation and commissioning of product, which was mandatory for the purpose of claiming the subsidy amount by the 1^st opposite party from the 2^nd opposite party and MNRE.  The 1^st opposite party has not yet received the total value of the product installed at the complainant’s residence and a sum of Rs.92,262/- being the subsidy amount, is still due and the same could not be collected by the 1^st opposite party as the complainant refused to provide certificate regarding installation and commissioning of the product.  There was no irresponsible attitude on the part of the 1^st opposite party and the complainant has not suffered any mental torture or financial loss.    Infact, monitory  loss and mental agony is caused to the 1^st opposite party as the 1^st opposite party is denied the subsidy amount receivable from 2^nd opposite party and MNRE as the complainant deliberately refused to issue certificate regarding installation and commissioning of the product.  The 1^st opposite party is always ready and willing to provide necessary maintenance service and is unnecessarily dragged before this Forum.  The defect in the product if any, as alleged by the complainant can be rectified only once the service personnel attached to the 1^st opposite party is allowed to inspect the product.  In the present matter complainant was not allowing to service personnel to inspect the product to find out what exactly is the problem and due to the hostile and indifferent attitude of the complainant, the 1^st opposite party is not in a position to identify the problem and rectify the same.  Even after the complainant was preferred by the complainant, 1^st opposite party conveyed directly to the complainant about its willingness to sent service personnel for inspecting the product for the purpose of identifying the problem and rectifying the same, however the complainant refuses to co-operate. Therefore the   complaint had to be dismissed.

2^nd opposite party filed version contenting the following

ANERT is the nodal agency for Govt. of India (MNRE)  and designated agency of Govt. of Kerala for the implementation of New and Renewable Energy Programme in Kerala.  A project for the installation of 10000 nos. 1KW solar power plant was submitted to MNRE by ANERT and got sanctioned. The role of ANERT is to facilitate beneficiaries of Kerala, who is intending to install solar power plant of 1KW with Central Financial Assistance(CFA).   Upfront release of subsidy to ANERT by MNRE avoids delay in claiming subsidy by individual beneficiaries from MNRE, Govt. of India. In additional to CFA, an amount of Rs.39,000/- per system was sanctioned by Govt. of Kerala for this project.  Govt. of India(MNRE) had fixed technical compliance and norms for the implementation of  prorgrammes under Jawhar Lal Nehru Solar Mission for availing CFA .  To make available agencies with required qualification, ANERT had invited  expression of interest from the approved channel partners of MNRE for the implementation of 10,000/- roof top programme.  Based on this,  bench mark cost  was fixed and list of agencies through which this programme could be implemented was prepared and published.

A registration process of beneficiaries was initiated for registering as beneficiary for the allotment of subsidy  under this programme.  The beneficiary has given freedom to select any of the agencies for implementation of the project at his premises based on his choice from shortlist published by ANERT from the list of Channel partners listed by MNRE.  Before installation a pre-installation site survey has to be conducted by the selected agency and if site is feasible for installation a pre-installation site survey report, copy of work order by beneficiary and copy of agreement  between beneficiary and agency has to submit at ANERT district office for confirming the implementation of the project.  On completion of installation of power plant, a commissioning report has to be filed at ANERT district office along with an undertaking by Beneficiary for the upkeep of the system.

A 3 tier system for verification of technical compliance was planned for confirming the quality assurance of power plant before the release of subsidy component to the empanelled agency approved of MNRE and Govt. of Kerala. The sole responsibility of placing work order after choosing an agency of his liking lies with the beneficiary.  The time line of installation payment conditions, warrantee etc. were clearly listed  in the agreement executed between beneficiary and agency.  The beneficiary is paying the cost of the system after deducting the subsidy from the total cost of system including installation.  Based on the authorization by the beneficiary only ANERT  will be releasing the subsidy amount to the agency.  It is the choice of the beneficiary to select an agency for installing solar system in his premises.  Repair and up keeping of the system is the responsibility of agency installed the system.  This is clearly indicated in the agreement executed by the agency and the beneficiary as insisted by ANERT.  

Complainant filed chief affidavit along with  documents.   1^st opposite party also filed chief affidavits.   Complainant filed application to direct the 2^nd opposite party to inspect the system and to report the present status of the solar system.  Application was allowed and 2^nd opposite party inspected the site and filed a detailed report. Then complainant filed a replication statement.  1^st opposite party seeks permission to inspect the system.  Permission was granted and 1^st opposite party  inspected the site and filed a report seeking permission for changing the fuse.  Complainant was also directed to co-operate with the 1^st opposite party, 1^st opposite party changed fuse and filed a report.  Complainant also filed additional proof affidavit. Ext.A1–A7 was  marked from the part of the complainant and  Ext.B1 –Ext.B7  was marked from the part of the opposite parties.    Complainant filed witness list.  Witness was summoned and examined as CW1.  Report was marked as Ext.C1. Evidence was closed.  Matter was heard.

The following issues are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

2. If so, what are the reliefs and cost? 

 ISSUES 1 & 2

The grievance of the complainant is that the product manufactured and installed by 1^st opposite party is defective and not generating the required output and that the complaint of the product was not attended by the service personnel of the 1^st opposite party.  As per the direction of the Forum the 2^nd opposite party had inspected the complainant’s residence and filed a report which was marked as Ext.C1.  In page 2 of Ext.C1 it is reported that Solar Module, Battery and Power conditioning units are as per the specification and approval of ANERT, and the installation complies the guidelines of “10000 Rooftop programme”.  The complainant alleges that the 2^nd opposite party has not checked the technical compliance of the solar system provided to the complainant in accordance with the guidelines of ANERT and the norms stipulated by the 1^st opposite party.    According to the C1 report it was reported that separate earthing for modular array is not provided by the 1^st opposite party and the Control Unit/MPMT/ Inverter is faulty.  In Ext.C1 report the 2^nd opposite party states that TVS and batteries are in good working condition.  The PV panel generates sufficient current and that the fault is with the control unit/MPMT/Inverter Unit.  The defect that is noted in the report is that the power conditioning system is not functioning and requires servicing or replacement and that the system will perform satisfactorily, if it is properly serviced/maintained and replacement of faulty component, if warranted. The next allegation by the complainant is that 1^st opposite party  failed to provide a system of rated output.  1^st opposite party submits that the mode of working of the said system is that the sunlight falling on the solar panel would be converted in to electricity and the same would be passed on to the power conditioning unit and from there to the battery and the battery gets charged and the complainant could use the energy so stored in the battery for operating his electrical and electronic equipments.   Considering the capacity of the battery and the product opted by the complainant only electrical and electronic goods of less than 1000 watts could be operated by utilizing the power stored in the battery.  The battery would normally get charged  during day time and the time required for getting fully charged would depend on the amount of sunlight falling to the solar panel. Battery would charged easily on a bright and sunny day and if it is an overcast day charging would be normally slow and if there is no sunlight, as in case of a rainy day, the battery would not get charged at all.  Hence the output capacity cannot be guaranteed.

The complainant has stated in his chief affidavit that the system gets off at 750w load even at 85% battery power back up is without properly understanding the technical facts .  In fact the reading 750.2kwh unit is mentioned in Ext.B7 report is the units of the power generated through the system and consumed by the complainant.  Based on the report filed by the 2^nd opposite party the petition was filed on behalf of the 1^st opposite party for directing the complainant to permit the service personnel to inspect the system for ascertaining the reason for non functioning of power conditioning system and with the permission of the Forum on 6/5/2015 the service engineer of the 1^st opposite party inspected the system and filed a report on 23/5/2015.  In the report it is stated that it was found that the fuse installed in the system is blown and that is the reason for non function of the system.  The complainant did not permit the service engineer to change the fuse and the 1^st opposite party sought direction from the Forum for directing the complainant to permit for changing the fuse.  Complainant permit to replace the blown fuse and after the fuse was replaced on 25/6/2015 the system started functioning.  In order to ascertain whether the system has become completely functioning and whether the batteries are getting charged properly and whether the system is generated output, the 1^st opposite party again sought permission from the Forum for inspection and on 11/8/2015 inspected the system, and on inspection it was found that the system was working properly and generating the expected out put and a report was filed to that effect which was marked as Ext.B7.  The 1^st opposite party submits that the complainant’s lack of knowledge regarding the working of system had resulted in the above complaint.  Output generated by the system on a given day and the battery back up offered by the system depends on factors like the climatic condition, load connected to the system etc.  In fact in this particular case the system became non functional due to a simple reason i.e. the blowing of fuse. Fuse is installed in the system to protect the same from the power fluctuations and the same is worth only Rs.2/-.  When the system became non operational due to the above reason, the complainant arrived at a conclusion that the system is defective and sub standard  and started showing in different attitude towards the 1^st opposite party and did not co-operate with them in inspecting the system and find out the defect.  According to the complainant after the repair work done by the 1^st opposite party now the system is working, though the system was completely dead for a long time.  The reason for the complaint was the complainant’s indifferent attitude and improper understanding regarding the working of the system.  As the complainant did not provide the certificate of installation to the 1^st opposite party the balance sale consideration of Rs.92,262/- was denied to the 1^st opposite party and they had suffered huge monetary loss.  As per the terms of the agreement unless and until the installation cum completion certificate is issued by the beneficiary within the time frame stipulated in the Ext.A3 agreement, the said allotment would be deemed cancelled and no payment would be made to the  manufacturer under the scheme.  

 From the available evidence it is proved that the complainant could not utilize the system only due to certain minor defects which could not rectified in time due to the non co-operation on the part of the complainant.  Even after the complaints were rectified the complainant was not satisfied.  The main allegation of the complainant was that the 1^st opposite party has completed the work only on 17/12/2013, even though the contract price was paid on 12/10/2013.  As per the agreement conditions, the work of  supply and installation has to be completed within 45 days of signing the agreement.  This condition was violated by the opposite parties.  Even after so many repeated repairs, the system could not be made working to the intended capacity.  The system provided by the opposite parties does not give rated output nor it gives constant voltage as per their manual.  Hence the system could not be fully utilized.  They have not issued any guarantee certificate in accordance with the terms of agreement.  According to the complainant the system provided by the 1^st opposite party is not giving rated output and the working of the system is not satisfactory and does not meet the specification. The 2^nd opposite party has not checked the technical complaints of the solar system provided to the complainant in accordance with the guidelines of the ANERT and the norms stipulated by the 1^st opposite party.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the above case, we are of the view that the system is of no use to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is partly allowed and we direct the opposite parties to return the contract price of Rs.97,715/- (Rupees Ninety Seven thousand seven hundred and fifteen only)  received from the complainant within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.   The opposite parties  shall be at liberty to take back the system installed at the complainant’s residence.  Considering the facts of the above case the parties shall bear their respective costs.

Complaint allowed in part as above.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 16^th  day of July, 2016.

                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                    Shiny.P.R

                                                                     President

                                                      Sd/-                                                                                        Suma. K.P

                                                                     Member

                                                                        Sd/-

                                                          V.P. Anantha Narayanan

                                                                     Member

A P P E N D I X

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 –Copy of Project of 1KW x 10,000 Roof-top Solar Power Plants Circular No.4351/ANERT/10000 SRTP/12-13  and Scheme dtd.24/8/2012

Ext.A2 – Copy of Pre- Installation site inspection Report Format-1

Ext.A3 – Copy of agreement between agency and beneficiary in Format No.3 dtd.12/10/2013.

Ext.A4 -  Retail Invoice cash/credit of Tata Power Solar dtd.26/11/2013

Ext.A5-  True copy of Lawyer notice of Adv.K.K.Thankappan to the opposite parties  dtd.20/3/2014

Ext.A6 - 2 Postal Receipts and 2 acknowledgment cards dtd.21/3/2014

Ext.A7- True copy of Reply received from Director, ANERT dtd.5/12/2013

Witness marked on the side of complainant

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 - Guidelines and Documents Book let No.2001

Ext.B2-ANERT  Hand Book on 10,000 Rooftop Solar Power Plants (off grid) Programme

Ext.B3- Tata Power Solar User Manual for Solar Power Pack

Ext.B4-  Photographs pertaining to the system installed at complainant’s residence

Ext.B5- Field Service Report for SPV Products dtd.21/03/2014

Ext.B6- Report filed by 2^nd opposite party, ANERT dtd.01/03/2015

Ext.B7- Report filed by Service Engineer of 1^st opposite party dtd.10/09/2015

Ext.C1- Commission Report of ANER­T

CW1- Ajith kumar.C.T

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost Allowed

No  cost.