IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM

                                                C.C.No. 382/2022

PRESENT

SMT. S.K.SREELA, B.A.L, LL.B, PRESIDENT

      SMT. S.SANDHYA   RANI. BSC, LL.B, MEMBER

  SRI.  STANLY HAROLD, B.A.LL.B, MEMBER

                                            ORDER DATED:    20-07-2023

BETWEEN

 Sheela S.Pillai,

Mararithottam Bunglow,

Kallelibhagom P.O.,

Karunagappally 690519, Kollam.                               :      Complainant

AND

1.  N.Chandrasekharan,

Chairman-Tata Power Solar Systems Limited,

Bombay House 24 Homi mody street,

Chairman-The Tata Power Solar Systems Limited,

Corporate centre B, 34 Sant Tukaram Road,

Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400009:Opposite Parties

2.  Dr.Praveer Sinha,

CEO & Managing Director-Tata Power Company Ltd.,

Bombay house 24 homi modi street, Mumbai-400001.

3. Ashish Khanna,

President renewables-Tata power company Ltd.,

Bombay house 24 homi modi street, Mumbai-400001.

4. Murugesh Pandian S.P.,

Head-material management-Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd.,

C/O SCINNTC Supply chain solutions pvt.ltd.,

Alangad village x/342B, JJ ware house,

Thiruvallor-Valanjambalam road, Kochi 683511.

5. Santhosh T.C.,

Senior associate-Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd.,

Electronic city, Hosur road,

6. Sebastian Rajappan,

Proprietor-Lifestyles

(authorised dealer-Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd.)

8/1338-411A, NTV Nagar-8, Kadappakkada,

Kollam 691008.

7. Roy,

Manager-Lifestyles (authorised dealer –Tata Power Solar

Systems Ltd), 8/1338-411A, NTV N24 homi modi street, Mumbai-400001.

Kadappakkada, Kollam-691008.

8. Sree Vishnu S.,

Field assistant-Lifestyles(authorised dealer-Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd),

8/1338-411A, NTV N24 homi modi street, Mumbai-400001.

Kadappakkada, Kollam-691008.

9. Vignesh,

Field assistant-Lifestyles(authorised dealer-Tata Power Solar Systems Ltd), 8/1338-411A, NTV N24 homi modi street, Mumbai-400001.

Kadappakkada, Kollam-691008.

ORDER

S.K.SREELA, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the complainant is that, the complainant had submitted an expression of interest on 29^th December 2021, to the Kerala State Electricity Board for participation in the solar subsidy programme.  Subsequently, on 29th January 2022, a detailed site survey and site recruitment study were conducted by Mr. Sreyas S. of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited. On the same day, Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, through Mr. Sreyas S. of Lifestyles in Kollam, was given the work order for the supply, installation and commissioning of a 3.44- Kilowatt rooftop solar power plant. The total cost of the project was Rs.1,36,339.50/-.
2. As per the detailed site survey and site recruitment study conducted by Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, it has been determined that all necessary items and materials are required for the complete supply, erection, and commissioning of a 3.44-Kilowatt rooftop solar power plant on the flat roof of the building, adjacent to the complainant's residence. Tata Power Solar Systems Limited has demanded compliance with KSEBL norms and completion within the stipulated time frame.
3. The complainant states that, despite making full and final payment to the opposite party, they deliberately refrained from completing the supply, erection and commissioning of the solar power plant. This conduct of the opposite parties falls under the purview of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. As a result, the complainant is seeking a refund of the amount paid, along with compensation and costs incurred due to the delayed and incomplete service provided by the opposite parties.
4. A notice was duly issued by this Commission to all the opposite parties. However, despite acknowledging receipt of the notice from this Commission, the opposite parties failed to appear and file their version in response. Consequently, all the opposite parties were set exparte.
5. The Power of Attorney holder of the complainant filed an affidavit in support of the complaint. Additionally, Exhibits P1 to P4 were marked on their behalf. These exhibits serve as evidence supporting the complainant's case.
6. The issues that would arise for consideration are;

1. Whether there has been any deficiency in service or unfair trade practises on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged in the complaint.

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

7. Point No.(i) & (ii): The complainant contends that they participated in the solar subsidy programme, phase two of KSEBL, by expressing their interest to the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited. The opposite parties, Tata Power Solar Systems Limited, demanded an amount of Rs. 1,36,339.50 based on their detailed site survey and study to supply all necessary items and materials required for erecting and commissioning a 3.44 KW rooftop solar power plant on the flat roof of the complainant's building, in accordance with KSEBL norms and within the stipulated time.
8. However, the complainant alleges that they were not informed of any additional items necessary for the erection and commissioning of the solar power plant beyond the initial agreement. Despite the complainant making the complete payment, Tata Power Solar Systems Limited is deliberately delaying the supply, erection, and commissioning of the solar power plant by claiming false information regarding the purchase and installation of a cable, which they allege falls under the complainant's scope of supply. The complainant received an email from the manager of the channel partner named Lifestyles of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited regarding this matter, to which the complainant replied with a denial.
9. Furthermore, the complainant states that notice was issued to all the opposite parties before filing this complaint. However, there has been no response from any of the opposite parties.
10. The Commission thoroughly examined these claims and supporting evidence, including the email communication between the complainant and Tata Power Solar Systems Limited's channel partner. The absence of response from the opposite parties has to be taken into account to determine whether there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practices by the opposite parties.
11. The Power of Attorney holder, who is the son of the complainant, has been examined as PWI. During the examination, PWI testified that after the filing of this complaint, the opposite parties finally completed the work and commissioned the solar power plant on 15-03-2023, which is approximately one year after the full payment was made. Despite the delayed commissioning of the plant, the opposite parties have shown reluctance in compensating the delay, the production loss, and the interest at 12% for the one-year delay period for the payment made vide Exhibit P1. As per the complaint, the complainant is seeking interest at 12% per annum on the total amount paid, which is Rs. 1,36,339.50, for the one-year delay. This interest calculation amounts to Rs. 6,360.74.
12. Furthermore, the complainant contends that, due to the delay in the erection of the solar power plant, there has been an actual electrical power and energy production loss, which has been estimated at 400 KW and amounts to Rs. 33,600/-.
13. Exhibit P1 is a copy of the cheque used as evidence of the complainant's payment of Rs. 1,36,339.50 to Tata Power Solar Systems Limited. Furthermore, Exhibit P2 is the receipt issued by Tata Power Solar Systems Limited to the complainant, acknowledging the payment. Exhibits P3 and P4 consist of copies of the notices that were issued to the opposite parties. However, despite receiving these notices, the opposite parties neither appeared nor responded to the communication from the complainant.
14. As evidenced in Exhibit P4, the channel partner of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited communicated with the complainant and informed them that an order for a 3.44 KW on-grid solar system, to be installed at the residence of the complainant, was taken through KSEB's Saurabh Phase II. During the site survey, the survey engineer specifically informed the complainant that there was no available space on top of the complainant's house to install the solar panels. As a result, an agreement was reached to install the solar panels on a nearby building, and the complainant was informed that they would need to purchase and install a 20-meter underground cable. That this deviation from the standard installation condition was agreed upon by both parties.
15. The channel partner has further expressed that, as per KSEB tender conditions, they were responsible for supplying and installing under standard conditions, and any deviation required by the customer had to be arranged by the customer themselves. The channel partner urged the complainant to expedite the completion of the necessary work from their end so that Tata Power Solar Systems Limited could proceed with the installation and commissioning of the system.
16. The Commission thoroughly examined the evidence provided in Exhibits P1, P2, P3, and P4, including the exhibit showing the complainant's denial of the allegations, along with relevant evidence and testimonies. This examination supports the validity of the complainant's claims and the actions of Tata Power Solar Systems Limited.
17. Based on the evidence presented, including the absence of objections or challenges from the opposite parties, and the nature of the transactions involved, it is evident that the complainant's case is well-founded. The delay in installing the solar power plant, even after the full payment was accepted well in advance, raises legitimate concerns about the fairness of the transaction. This delay can be considered an unfair trade practice, as it falls under the definition of deficient service on the part of the opposite parties.
18. The Commission, ensuring the protection of the complainant's rights and interests, finds that the complainant has to be appropriately compensated for the delay and the associated losses or inconvenience caused due to the opposite parties' actions.
19. Based on the considerations and the agony faced by the consumer due to non-installation of the solar power plant despite making the payment, it is concluded that the complainant is entitled to compensation. The delay in the installation of the power plant has caused undue inconvenience to the complainant. Considering the entire scenario and the evidence available, it is concluded that the complainant is entitled to receive interest on the amount that was paid one year ago and a compensation for this prolonged period of delay.
20. Hence the Commission finds that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant by paying Rs.16,360.74 (Rs.16,361/-) claimed as interest for the amount paid by the complainant. The loss caused due to the energy production loss has been calculated at Rs. 33,600/- for one year, but it is important to note that this amount is only a hypothetical estimation. Upon careful consideration we find that to cover the loss aforementioned and towards compensation for the inconveniences suffered by the complainant, an amount of Rs.10,000/- would be sufficient.
21. Hence the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.16,361/- along with Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and an amount of Rs.5000/- towards costs to the complainant. These amounts shall be paid within one month from the date of acceptance of the copy of the order failing the amount shall carry an interest @9% from the date of the order till realisation. In the event of non-compliance with the aforementioned order, the complainant retains the right to initiate execution proceedings.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the 20^th day of  July 2023. 

Sd/-

S.K.SREELA

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI

MEMBER

Sd/-

STANLY HAROLD

MEMBER

Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                       Senior superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-Nil

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1    : Cheque issued dated 18.02.2022

Ext.P2    : Cash receipt for full payment dated 18.02.2022

Ext.P3    : Notice issued to all the opposite parties

Ext.P3(a): Notice issued to 1^st opposite party

Ext.P3(b): Notice issued to 2^nd opposite party

Ext.P3(c): Notice issued to 3^rd  opposite party

Ext.P3(d): Notice issued to 4^th  opposite party

Ext.P3(e): Notice issued to 5^th  opposite party

Ext.P3(f): Notice issued to 6^th opposite party

Ext.P3(g): Notice issued to 7^th  opposite party

Ext.P3(h): Notice issued to 8^th  opposite party

Ext.P3(i): Notice issued to 9^th  opposite party

Ext.P4    : Email communication

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil

Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil