Sr  Sri M.C.DEVAKUMAR,

      Member

1.       The Complainant Sri Anand Sai Gopal.N., represented through his GPA holder Sri Gopal Narayanan, has filed this complaint against Mr.Haneef Mohammed, proprietor of M/s Taurus solar System, under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, alleging deficiency in service and prayed for a direction to refund Rs.4,27,500/-along with interest at 18% p.a and further to pay  damages of Rs. 1,00,000/-for the physical strain and mental agony suffered by him and his family members and also to pay Rs.10,000/-towards cost of the proceedings with such other reliefs.

2.         The complainant submits that, he had availed the service of  opposite party by placing an order to install “Roof Top Solar Photovoltaic System” (SRTPV)  with a capacity of 5 KW for a price of Rs. 4,75,000/- to his house situated at Lakshmikanth nagar, Hebbal, Mysore.

3.     The opposite party had issued an order format bearing no 2825 on 06.04.2017 with the project proposal. A total of Rs. 4,27,500/- was paid to opposite party, as and when demanded, through cheque and NEFT. The opposite party had applied with M/s.Chamundeshwari Electric Supply Corporation(CESC) vide application NO.7573854651 on 26.04.2017 for the account ID No.7340034000 for increase of electrical load from 1KW to 5KW and got sanctioned on 09.05.2017. Further, the opposite party provided one power inverter of 5KW capacity and installed DCDB  and ACDB, with two earthing points without connecting to the system. Later opposite party stopped work after 05.06.2017 for the reason delay in testing of net meter by CESC. As per the order format  the opposite party was to complete the work by 4 weeks from the date of delivery of material to the site, which was expired by first week of June2017. On 11.05.2017 through whatsup massage, the opposite party informed the inspection of solar installation by CESC Engineers. But till today the inspection did not take place. On raising objection, how the inspection will be done without completion of installation of the system, the opposite party replied that, the installation work would be completed soon after inspection.

4.       It is alleged that the opposite part has undertaken the execution of work without technical skill. The installation of solar inverter is unscientific, which is not in accordance with the manufacturer’s specification for clearance and ventilation. The top clearance should be 150mm and the side clearance should be 100 mm. The inverter was housed in full metal box without ventilation which cause heat buildup and damage to the inverter. Further the solar panel frames are fabricated with weak and substandard “ L’’ section of 25mm instead of 35mm size square frames. The mounting structure started to corrode within a month. The DCDB mounted on terrace. The earthing was provided for two points as against three points which is mandatory. Due to improper alignment of the solar panel, permanent shadow fall on SPV Cells resulting in lesser power generation and also caused revenue loss every day. In spite of bringing these defects to the notice of opposite party he did not show any interest in rectification of the defects. On account of poor quality of work done by the opposite party, if the same is connected to the grid of CESC, it will endanger to the life and property.  In spite of repeated request and demand the opposite party did not come forward to rectify the defects. But he had demanded for payment of balance amount. Further, the opposite party has supplied the inverter made by delta which cost Rs.1,50,000/- instead he supplied power one inverter costing Rs.79,000/-.

5.      A legal notice was caused on 07.07.2017, demanding the rectification of defects or to cancel the order dated 06.04.2017 and also to refund the entire amount paid by him, which was replied untenably by opposite party on 19.07.2017. The same has been alleged as deficiency in service. Hence filed the complaint seeking reliefs.

6.     The opposite party failed to appear, hence placed to exparte. The opposite party represented through counsel belatedly and filed an application seeking to set aside the exparte order which come to be allowed an payment of cost. However the opposite party failed to file its version. Hence the version of opposite party was taken as nil on 30.10.2017. Once again the opposite party has filed another application Under section 151 of CPC with a prayer to permit to file its version. Which came to be allowed on payments of cost of Rs. 2,000/- on 25.01.2018.

7.     The opposite party submits that the complainant is not a consumer under section 2(1) (d) of The Consumer Protection Act 1986 for the reason that the transaction between the complainant and opposite party is of commercial in nature and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable.

8.     The opposite party submits that, on 05.04.2017, the complainant enquired about installation of solar lighting system for his house and after clarifying all technical details it was agreed to install 5KW SRTPV system. The opposite noticed that the complaint had CESCOM load of only 1KW, as such the CESCOM not allowed to take installation for 5KW SRTPV. However it was assured by the complainant to get enhance the load from 1KW to 5KW and agreed the cost of system of Rs.95,000/- per KW. As per the direction of CESCOM the enhancement of load should be carried out by a certified Electrical contractor. As such Mr. Chandrahas, an authorized person of CESCOM has been appointed, who informed that the enhancement of load work would take minimum of 43 to 45 days. This is purely between the complainant CESCOM and the Electrical contractor. The work was undertaken immediately. The opposite party denied the allegation of use of sub standard quality materials in fabrication work and the delay in completion of fabrication work was due to interference of complainant only. Further alleged that, the complainant has not made the payment in time and has executed the work as per instructions of CESCOM. As such, deficiency in service  by it has been denied and  prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

9.     Both parties filed their respective affidavit evidence by way of examination in chief with several documents. Written arguments filed by both side.

10.     The court commissioner appointed by this commission, has submitted his report with photographs and CD on 11.06.2019. after perusing the material on record, matter set down for orders.

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

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service by the opposite party and thereby he is entitled for the reliefs?

2. What order?

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

Point No.1:- Partly in the affirmative

Point No.2: As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

13. Point No.1:- The complainant argued that, he has placed an order for installation of Solar Roof Top Photovoltaic system costing Rs.4,75,000/- on 06.04.2017 with a condition to complete the installation and get connected to CESCOM grid within 8 weeks from the date of order and 4 weeks after delivery of equipment. He has paid 90% of the agreed amount to opposite party on various dates, but the opposite party had failed to carry out the installation work satisfactorily, it was alleged that, the opposite party had  made used of  substandard material and the work was not carried out by the technically skilled persons. Thereby he opted to cancel the order and sought for refund of the amount paid by him with interest.

14.     The opposite party argued that, he has carried out the installation work with the guidance and assistance of technically qualified persons only. The equipments were installed as per the standard norms set down by CESCOM authorized electrical contractor. He has used the standard quality materials and as per the standard guidelines only. The delay in completion of work was due to non-availability of sanction of load and to obtain sanction from CESCOM only. Further, the opposite party argued  that, the complainant is not a Consumer as defined Under Section 2(1) (d) of the C.P. Act 1986, as he has involved in selling the power generated  to CESCOM to earn money, which is a commercial transaction, and hence the complaint is not maintainable and liable  to dismissed with costs,

15.     The commissioner report revealed that, the opposite party has not made use of inferior quality materials in installation of the system and the work was carried out satisfactorily, in accordance with the norms of CESCOM. The photographs  produced along with the commissioner report also goes to show that the work was carried out satisfactorily and still some part of work was pending for completion.

16.      Considering the above facts, this commission opined that, the opposite party has carried out 90% of the agreed work for installation of Solar Photovoltaic System on Roof Top of the complainant site and still some part of the work is yet to be completed. Hence the point on.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.

17.  Point no.2:- In view of the above observations, the complaint filed Sri. Gopal Narayanan deserved to be allowed in part. Hence the following.

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed to complete all the necessary pending work satisfactorily so as to generate 5KW Power and to get connect to the CESCOM grid in 30 days of this order
3. Further the complainant also directed to pay the balance amount after completion of all the pending work and enabling him to get connected to the CESCOM grid hence forth.
4.  No order as to costs.

5. Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of cost.