Haryana

Karnal

CC/204/2019

Pawan Diwan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nexa Solar Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Tapan Verma

14 Jan 2020

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

 

                                                          Complaint No. 204 of 2019

                                                          Date of instt.11.04.2019

                                                          Date of Decision 14.01.2020.

 

 

Pawan Diwan son of Shri Jaman Lal resident of House no.1156, Sector 7, Karnal. Age 65 years, Aadhar no.5684411778902. Phone no.94162-88128.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Nexa Solar Pvt. Ltd. SCO 380, Mugal Canal, Karnal.

2. Enertech UPS Pvt. Ltd. S. No.399/1-2, plot  no.5, Bhare P.O., Ghotawade (Near Pirangut), Tal-Mulshi, District Pune-412 111, Maharashtra, through its authorized signatory.

 

                                                                         …..Opposite Parties.

 

 

           Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

 

 

Before    Sh. Jaswant Singh……President. 

                 Dr. Rekha Chaudhary…….Member

 

 

 Present:  Shri Tapan Verma Advocate for complainant.

                   Shri Joginder Singh Advocate for opposite party no.1.

                   Shri Anuj Gupta Advocate for opposite party no.2.

                 

 

                   (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 complainant was planning for installing a Solar Power Plant of 5 KW alongwith Solar Inverter of 7.5 KW at his residence so that he may save energy charges and in this regard, in the first week of August, 2016 the complainant contacted the OP no.1 and the complainant purchased Solar Power Plant from OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.3,66,438/-. The Hybrid Solar PCU of Enertech was finalized as per technical specification of catalog supplied by OP no.2 on the basis of consent from complainant. The solar power plant of 5 KW alongwith solar inverter of 7.5 KW was installed in the premises of the complainant in the month of September/October, 2016 and at the time of installing the said solar power plant and solar inverter in the premises of the complainant the OP no.1 and at the time of purchase, the OP no.1 had given 2 years warranty card issued by OP no.2 to the complainant with assurance that in case there would be any problem in the said solar inverter etc. during warranty period, the OP no.2 will remove the problem free of costs. The PCU was with inbuilt isolation transformers and assured the complainant that the system has no load loss of less than 4% of rating but the PCU had not an actual efficiency of 60% and the PCU/inverter was not as per the specification of MNRE of supply order and catalog of company. There were so many manufacturing defects in the inverter and the said inverter not worked 20-25 days continuously and from the month of October/November, 2016. The said system was not working continuously and in this regard complainant approached OP no.1 and OP no.1 suggested the complainant to visit/approach the OP no.2 i.e. service center of aforesaid solar inverter/solar power plant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP no.2 and requested to resolve the grievances of the complainant but the OP no.2 postponed the matter and paid no heed to his genuine request. Due to non-functioning of the inverter the complainant suffered huge loss and mental harassment given by the OPs. That the officials/service engineer of the OP no.2 visited the site and tried to remove defects but were not able to remove the defects and lastly on 05.06.2017 when the defect was not removed., the company recall back the inverter, the OP no.1 dispatch the same G.R. No.53834089 dated 15.06.2017 and thereafter till today the company neither installed new system nor compensated the complainant and in his regard several telephonic calls were made and emails are exchanged but despite the conversations and false assurance, the claim of the complainant is not honoured by the OPs and the complainant is suffering lot mental pain and agony besides financial loss and till date the complainant has suffered financial loss approximately Rs.5,00,000/- including (inverter cost, electricity loss) and the OPs legally bound to compensate the complainant. Complainant sent a legal notice dated 20.10.2018 to the OP regarding making the payment of inverter Rs.1,69,830/- to the complainant and towards the cost of said system, Rs.5,00,000/- towards loss of energy, mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant but it also did not yield any result. In this way there was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Hence complainant filed the present complaint.

2.             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 compliant against OP no.1 by his own acts and conduct to file the present complaint and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complaint qua purchase of Solar Power Plant from the OP no.1 is admitted. It is further stated that the responsibility of service is required to be provided to the complainant only by the OP no.2. It is admitted fact t hat OP no.1 had given two years warranty card issued by OP no.2 to the complainant. It is also admitted that during warranty period it is the responsibility of the OP no.2 to remove the problems free of costs during warranty period. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 suggested the complainant to approach the OP no.2 i.e. service centre of the aforesaid Solar Inverter/Solar Power Plant as it is the responsibility of the OP no.2 to remove the problems free of costs during warranty period. It is further pleaded that the OP no.1 had dispatched inverter dated GR no.53834089 dated 15.06.2017. It is relevant to mention here that there is no fault on the part of the OP no.1 as the OP no.1 is only dealer of the Inverter/Solar Plant Manufactured by the company of the OP no.2, who is solely responsible to cure the defect of the inverter/solar plant during warranty period. The OP no.1 has performed his duties with fully efficiency and also insisted the OP no.2 to provide services to the complainant as per his full satisfaction, so the loss suffered by the complainant, if any, is not on account of the default of the OP no.1, so the OP no.1 is also not a necessary party in the present complaint. 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.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the OP no.2 sold only Hybrid Solar PCU to the OP no.1 which was lateron sold to the complainant by OP no.1. The PCU was with inbuilt isolation transformer. The OP has assured the complainant that no load loss is 4% as per MNRE norms. The OP has MNRE test report regarding the same. The OP no.2 has assured that the efficiency will be 60% at 25% load. The OP no.2 has replied to the complainant and MNRE regarding PCU capabilities vide e-mail dated 31^st August, 2017. The PCU was working in good condition. The OP no.2 has the service report of the same. That whenever the technician of the OP no.2 has visited the site of the complainant, he found that there was load imbalance problem. The load of the complainant is 1-Phase and the complainant has bought 3-Phase PCU. Therefore, the complainant is facing the problem. OP informed the complainant about the same, vide email dated 05.05.2017 also refer service reports dated 25^th September, 2016 and 23^rd March, 2017. OP no.2 has therefore, recalled the machine to demonstrate MNRE criteria, give usage of same unit for grid feed mode. All the above noted situation was also got cleared by the OP no.2 through email dated 10.04.2017 and others to the complainant. OP no.2 states that it has suggested to replace 3 phase PCU with 1-Phase PCU since all load is 1-Phase. The complainant can refer email dated 10^th April, 2017. However, the complainant is not ready for the same. The complainant’s contention is that he wanted to use grid feed mode potion in 3-Phase mode, as his supply is 3 Phase. The OP no.2 has also give offer to replace machine with grid export facility. The complainant can refer email dated 10^th July, 2018. The OP no.2 has given refund option to the complainant. The complainant can refer email dated 6^th January, 2018. The OP no.2 has also given buyback/exchange option to the complainant. The complainant can refer e-mail dated 10^th April, 2017. But the complainant was not ready for the same. The OP no.2 has also requested to the complainant to come for inspection to see how same 3-Phase machine can be used for grid feed mode, as earlier supplied off grid 3 phase, inverter is not suitable at site. But the complainant was not ready to accept any of the said options. This fact can be verified through the email dated 18^th August, 2017. The OP no.2 has record of service reports and call logged sheet. The OP no.2 has tried to solve the issue by giving different options. But the complainant is not accepting of the said option. The claim of the complainant is not logical one. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP no.2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and closed the evidence on 30.10.2019. In additional evidence complainant tendered the documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C11 and closed the additional evidence on 26.12.2019.

5.             On the other hand, OP no.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Joginder Singh Director Ex.OP/W1 and documents Ex.OP1 and Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on 20.11.2019.

6.             OP no.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Mr. Kaushik Vijay Deshpande Ex.OPW1/A and documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP11 and closed the evidence on 04.12.2019.

7.             We have heard the learned counsel of both the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             The case of the complainant, in brief, is that complainant purchased a Solar Plant from OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.3,66,438/- with the warranty of two years. The PCU was with inbuilt isolation transformers and assured the complainant that the system has no load loss of less than 4% of rating but the PCU had not an actual efficiency of 60% and the PCU/inverter was not as per the specification of MNRE of supply order and catalog of company. There were so many manufacturing defects in the inverter and the same did not work for 20-25 days continuously. From the month of October/November, 2016 the said system was not working continuously and in this regard complainant approached OP no.1 and OP no.1 suggested the complainant to visit/approach the OP no.2 i.e. service center of aforesaid solar inverter/solar power plant. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP no.2 and requested to resolve the grievances of the complainant but the OP no.2 postponed the matter and paid no heed to his genuine request.

9.             The case of the OP no.1 is that, OP no.1 is only dealer of the Inverter/Solar Plant Manufactured by the company of the OP no.2, who is solely responsible to remove the defect of the inverter/solar plant during warranty period. The OP no.1 has performed his duties with fully efficiency and also insisted the OP no.2 to provide services to the complainant as per his full satisfaction, so the loss suffered by the complainant, if any, is not on account of the default of the OP no.1.

10.            The case of the OP no.2, in brief, is that OP no.2 sold only Hybrid Solar PCU to the OP no.1 which was lateron sold to the complainant by OP no.1. The OP no.2 has replied to the complainant and MNRE regarding PCU capabilities vide e-mail dated 31^st August, 2017. The PCU was working in good condition. The OP no.2 has the service record of the same. The OP no.2 has given refund option to the complainant. The OP no.2 has also given buyback/exchange option to the complainant. The complainant can refer e-mail dated 10^th April, 2017 but the complainant was not ready for the same. The complainant is not a consumer of OP No.2 as the OP No.2 has sold its unit to OP No.1. The complainant is not entitled to claim any relief from OP No.2.

11.            Admittedly, the complainant purchased Solar Power Plant from OP no.1 for an amount of Rs.3,66,438/- and OP no.1 had given two years warranty. Warranty card had issued by OP no.2. As per version of the complainant, the PCU was with inbuilt isolation transformers and assured the complainant that system has no load loss of less than 4% of rating but the PCU had not an actual efficiency of 60% and the PCU/inverter was not as per the specification of MNRE of supply order and catalog of company. There were so many manufacturing defects in the inverter and said inverter did not work for 20-25 days continuously. The complainant approached the OP no.2 and requested to resolve the grievance of the complainant but OP no.2 paid no heed to his genuine request.

12.            Undisputedly, the inverter was manufactured by OP no.2. It is also not disputed that OP no.2 has recalled the inverter and same is lying with the OP no.2, till date OP no.2 has neither installed the system nor compensated the complainant. As per the complainant and OP no.1, the cost of the inverter was Rs.1,69,830/-  

13.            Learned counsel for OP No.1 submits that the whole unit is not defected. If there is any defect in the same that is in the inverter system and the same was manufactured by OP No.2, therefore, the OP No.2 is liable for the same.         

14.            Learned counsel for the OP no.2 submits that OP no.2 sold only Hybrid Solar PCU to the OP no.1, which was lateron sold to the complainant by OP no.1. OP No.2 has suggested replacing 3-Phase PCU with 1-Phase PCU since all load is 1-Phase. However, the complainant is not ready for the same. The OP No.2 is only a manufacturer of the inverter and OP No.2 has sold it to the OP No.1. In this situation, the complainant is not a consumer of OP NO.2 and therefore, the relationship between the complainant and OP No.2 is not of purchaser as well as consumer. Moreover, OP had provided satisfactory service to the complainant. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant in collusion with OP No.1 with the intention to extract the money from OP no.2. Learned counsel for the OP no.2 further submits that if the Hon’ble Forum passes an order for replace or refund the cost of the inverter in question then OP no.2 is liable only to replace or refund the unit to the OP no.1 as he has sold the inverters to OP no.1. He further submits that if the claim has been passed in favour of complainant then OP no.1 has no right to claim the same in future.

15.            From the correspondence and record place on file, it has been proved that problem started from the beginning the date of installation of the unit in question. It has also been proved that there is manufacturing defect in the inverter that is why OP no.2 has recalled the same but till date OP No.2 neither installed the new unit nor refunded the cost of the unit. Unit in question is still with the OP no.2, for which OP No.2 has no right to keep both i.e. unit as well as sale price of the unit and the remaining unit which is lying with the complainant has become useless as the same cannot work without inverter which is lying with OP No.2.

16.            In view of the abovesaid discussion and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that OP No.2 is the manufacturer of the unit and there is manufacturing defect in the unit, therefore, the act of the OP no.2 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

17.            Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.1,69,830/- the cost of the inverter to the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of purchasing till its realization. We further direct the OP no.2 to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.5500/- for the litigation expenses.  OP no.1 is also directed not to claim the sale price of the said unit from OP no.2 in future as same has been awarded in favour of the complainant. 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:14.01.2020

                                                                       

 

                                                                  President,

                                                           District Consumer Disputes

                                                           Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 

       

        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

                    Member                        

 

 

 

Present:     Shri Tapan Verma, counsel for complainant.

                Shri Joginder Singh, counsel for OP No.1.

                Shri Anuj Gupta, counsel for OP No.2

 

                Arguments heard. Now the case is adjourned to 14.1.2020 for order.

 

Date: 7.1.2020

 

                                                                President

 

        Member                     Member  

 

 

Present:     Shri Tapan Verma, counsel for complainant.

                Shri Joginder Singh, counsel for OP No.1.

                Shri Anuj Gupta, counsel for OP No.2

 

                Order announced. Vide our separate detailed order of even date, the present complaint has been allowed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Date: 14.1.2020

 

                                                                President

 

                                Member