Haryana

Karnal

CC/164/2019

Amit Duhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nexa Solar Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Tapan Verma

21 Aug 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.                                                               

                                                                   Complaint no.164 of 2019

                                                                   Date of instt. 19.03.2019

                                                                  Date of decision:21.08.2019

 

Amit Duhan aged about 39 years son of Shri Joginder Singh, resident of village Bhadson, Tehsil Indri, District Karnal.                                  

…….Complainant

                                        Versus

 

1. NEXA SOLAR PVT. LTD., SCO no.380, Mughal CANAL, KARNAL, THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR/PARTNER.

2. SIGNATRON (INDIA) Pvt. Ltd. PLOT NO.J1/6, BLOCK-EP, SECTOR-V, SALT LAKE ELECTRONICS COMPLEX KOLKATA-700091 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

         

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

                Sh. Vineet Kaushik………Member

                Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present:  Shri Tapan Verma Advocate for complainant.

                  Shri Subhash Kashyap Advocate for OP no.1.

                  OP no.2 exparte.

 

                   (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 on the averments that in the month of March, 2017 the representative of the OP no.1 had approached to the complainant and given a proposal for installation of 5 KW Solar Plant with 7.5 KW Phase Inverter. (Hybird Grid Solar Power Generating System). During negotiation between the complainant and representative authorized representative of the OPs informed to the complainant that said Grid Solar Power Generating System would be installed by the company of OP no.1, whereas said Grid Solar Power Generating System would be purchased by the company of OP no.1 from the company of OP no.2 and services regarding warrantee/repair would be provided by the company of OP no.2 till next two years. It has been informed by the OPs that prior to installation of said Grid Solar Power Generating System, testing report would also be provided by OPs. The complainant being satisfied with the Technical specification, Signotron Catalogue etc. of said Grid Solar Power Generating System and its assured working performance, agreed to purchase the same and accordingly, the complainant had given his consent for purchase of aforesaid Grid Solar Power Generating System alongwith GOLDI 320 MM (320) 5760 KW and then said Grid Solar Power Generating System was installed by the representatives of the OPs at the desire place of the complainant. OP no.1 had placed the supply order to OP no.2 amounting to Rs.1,36,285/-, vide invoice no.41 dated 06.06.2017. OP no.1 had also issued invoice no.NEXA/16/2017-18 dated 01.07.2018 for a total consideration of Rs.5,64,480/- in favour of the complainant, which were duly paid by the complainant. At the time of installation of aforesaid Grid Solar Power Generating System, the complainant surprised to notice that the specifications alleged to have been shown in the catalogue and supply order, have not been provided to the complainant while installing said system, complainant objected in this regard, then the representatives of OPs had given an assurance that very soon all the specifications would be completed after installation of said Grid Solar Power Generating System. During the installation of said system, OP no.1 had also sent several emails to the authorized person of OP no.2 for providing such specifications, but no fruitful purpose was served.

2.             It is further alleged that after few days from the installation of said Grid Solar Power Generating System i.e. in the month of July, 2017 problem occurred in the charging process of inverter, and then the complainant immediately approached to both of OPs, then said Grid Solar Power Generating System was inspected by the authorized engineers of OPs, but the fault has not been cured by the officials of the OPs. Thereafter, complainant approached the OPs several times and requested for replacement of the defective inverter, so that charging system of said Grid Solar Power Generating System can run properly but till the problem of charging process has not been resolved by OP no.2. Complainant sent the several emails to the OPs in this regard. In reply of the emails, the representative of OP no.2 has admitted the fact that “testing of the ordered material 7.5 KW PCU is going on. But unfortunately the Major items like IGBT and magnetic are not functioning properly. Regarding these items should be replaced. You are requested to give us some more days to resolve this problem.”  But even after waiting sufficiently, the problem has not been resolved, till date. On account of non-performance of Grid Solar Power Generating System the complainant is suffering too much inconvenience and loss of energy etc. and complainant is compelled to pay high electricity charges. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

3.             Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, OP no.1 appeared and filed written version raising preliminary objections with regard to complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by his own act and conduct and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.1 has tried his level best to satisfying the complainant by insisting the OP no.2 to resolve the alleged dispute as per satisfaction of the complainant but all in vain. It is further alleged that the responsibility of service is required to be provided to the complainant only by OP no.2, there is no role of OP no.1 in this context. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.1. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.2 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 9.5.2019.

5.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and closed the evidence on 24.07.2019.

6.             On the other hand, OP no1. Tendered into evidence affidavit of Joginder Singh Prop. Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.RW1 to Ex.RW2 and closed the evidence on 9.8.2019.

7.             We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

8.             It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased a Grid Solar Power Generating System from OP no.1, which was manufactured by OP no.2 and installed the same in premises of the complainant. As per allegations of the complainant, that after few days from the installation the Grid Solar Power Generating System started creating problem in the charging. Complainant informed the OPs in this regard. The engineer of the OPs inspected the Grid Solar Power Generating System but fault has not been cured despite his best efforts. Thereafter, complainant complained the OPs in this regard so many times via emails and also requested for replacement of the defective inverter, so that the charging of the abovesaid system can run properly but the problem of charging could not resolved by the OP no.2 despite of several requests. In support of his version complainant placed on file his affidavit Ex.CW1/A.

9.             OP no.1 in his reply stated that he has tried his level best to satisfy the complainant by insisting the OP no.2 to resolve the alleged dispute as per satisfaction of the complainant but all in vain. It is further stated that the responsibility of service is required to be provided to the complainant only by OP no.2, there is no role of OP no.1 in this context. To rebut the version of the complainant and OP no.1, OP no.2 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. So, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Hence it is well proved that the service of the OP no.2 is deficient.

6.             Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 to replace the defective inverter with new one and to provide all specification in the Grid Solar Power Generating System as per Technical Specification, Signotron Catalogue etc.  It is made clear if the defective inverter of the system is not available with the OP no.2 of the same make and value then OP no.2 is liable to pay the cost of the same. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for harassment, mental agony and for litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:21.08.2019

                                                                       

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

        (Vineet Kaushik)     (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

            Member                     Member