Haryana

Karnal

CC/455/2020

Shri Balaji Dairy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Patanjali Renewable Energy Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Raj Kumar Sharma Udana

06 Nov 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.455 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.26.10.2020

                                                        Date of Decision: 06.11.2024

 

Shri Balaji Dairy, village Darar, Bara Goan Road, Baragoan, Tehsil and District Karnal through its proprietor/partner Rakesh Sharma, village Uchana, Tehsil and District Karnal. Aadhar card no.625903493375.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. Patanjali Renewable Energy Private Limited Works D83-84 and 85 EPIP, UPSIDC, Kasna Site-V, Greater Noida (UP) through its Manager/authorized signatory.
2. Libra Group, Shiv Puri Road, Model Town, Karnal through its proprietor/partners Ram Mehar Sharma.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Shri S.K. Sharma, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Vikas Yadav, counsel for the OP No.1.

                    OP no.2 exparte, vide order dated 23.01.2024.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

 

               The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that OPs contacted the complainant and disclosed that they are engaged in the business of solar energy provider and install solar panels for solar energy and advised the complainant to get the solar panels installed in his dairy to save the electricity. On the advice of the OPs, complainant was ready to get the solar panels installed in his dairy for energy purpose. The total cost of solar system material came to Rs.35,81,760/- as per invoice no.LG/2018-10 dated 14.01.2019 and the solar system was of 41.6KW. The complainant purchased the solar system/material from the OPs and as such in the year 2018, the OPs installed 130 panel worth Rs.12,60,000/-, vide voucher no.PREL/DC/18-19/002 dated 27.09.2018 in the dairy of the complainant Rs.1,39,901/- were spent on the structure vide invoice no.138 dated 26.09.2018 for the installation of panels. At the time of installation of panels, the OPs told and gave assurance that the panel/total solar system bears a warranty of 25 years from the date of installation of panels. In this regard, OP no.2 issued a voucher no.1 PREL/DC/18-19/002 dated 27.09.2018. Rs.9,66,000/- were spent on purchasing of batteries and inverters vide challan no.PREL/DC/18-19/005 dated 18.10.2018 and Rs.4,74,000/- were spent on solar battery and its components/parts as per challan no.PREL/DC/18-19/006 dated 18.10.2018. The complainant had incurred Rs.26,000/- on fair/freight charges and Rs.39000/- were spent on copper cable and Rs.50,000/- were spent on miscellaneous expenses. At the time of installation, the OPs promised that if any damage/fault occur in the solar system, the OPs would be liable to refund the cost of Solar system alongwith installation charges and would also be liable to pay compensation on account of loss of business and mental pain and agony. On 12.05.2020, there was wind in the vicinity, 75 Module were damaged due to the fast wind and the entire system of the solar panel was damaged and stopped its functioning. The complainant contacted the OP no.2 and narrated the entire facts and the OP no.2 sent emails to OP no.1 on 18.05.2020, 23.06.2020, 27.06.2020, 20.08.2020, 21.08.2020, 27.08.2020, 31.08.2020 and 05.09.2020 and the conversation took place through abovesaid emails for the repair/replacement of the panels and the OP no.1 assured the complainant that the panels would be repaired/replaced very shortly. That 75 panels were damaged due to faulty and improper drawing of the OPS, as a result of which the air could pass through the panels properly which resulted in damaging the panels and solar system. The damage to the panels and solar system also took place due to the fact that panels/modules were of inferior quality. The structure was made by OP no.1. OP no.2 inspected the solar plant of the complainant. The complainant took every possible care and caution for the proper functioning of the solar system. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the damaging of panels, there was also damage to the batteries being of inferior quality and defective and the same were got repaired and inverter was giving a problem from the very beginning continuously. The stopper, middle clamps were of inferior quality, due to which also the panels were damaged. The complainant has suffered a huge financial loss due to non-functioning of the solar panels and the complainant had to arrange alternative source of energy i.e. generator/electricity. After three months of the damage to the panels, the engineers/expert of OP no.1 visited the spot and on inspection came to the conclusion that the said damage has taken place due to facts as mentioned above. It is further averred that OP no.1 had promised to sell the solar system parts made and manufactured by itself, but the OP no.1 sold 130 panels manufactured and installed by no.1 and other parts i.e. inverter, battery etc. were manufactured by some other company, which were not of good quality and were of inferior quality. Due to non-functioning of the solar system, milk and other milk products became uneatable and became useless and the complainant has suffered huge loss. Thereafter, complainant requested the OPs to repair/replace the panels within the warranty period but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Complainant has set up the milk plant/business for his employment and livelihood and livelihood of his family.  In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to refund Rs.35,81,760/- on account of damage to the solar system alongwith Rs.14,50,000/- for loss to the business alongwith interest @ 18% per annum till the date of realization, to pay Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation in lieu of mental pain agony and harassment and to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus standi; mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties: jurisdiction as the complainant purchased the solar panel for commercial purpose and territorial jurisdiction as the OP no.1 situated at Gorkhanath Mandi, Dwarka, New Delhi and factory is situated at Greater-Noida and no cause of action ever arose in the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. On merits, it is pleaded that OP no.2 contacted the OP no.1 for purchasing only Solar Panel/material for plant for commercial purpose vide letter dated 23.08.2018. After receiving the same, OP no.1 issued Performa Invoice dated 08.09.2018. Thereafter, doing relevant negotiations for Solar System Material Panel, the OP no.1 had issued final tax invoice dated 26.09.2018 to the OP no.2/Libra Group, Shivpuri Road, Model Town Karnal. OP no.1 had issued invoice for material only and they had not done any installation of Solar Panel and materials hence they have not issued any invoice for installation and commissioning. The installation has been done by the OP no.2 itself or through some third party. The OP no.2 has given the address for Delivery point as Libra Group, Balaji Dairy, Darbar Bara Goan Road, Bara Gaon, Karnal. The challan dated 27.09.2018 also clearly established that the invoice issued to Libra Group and dispatched to Libra Group, Balaji Dairy, Bara Gaon, Karnal. In fact the Delivery challan dated 18.10.2018, clearly demonstrates the address of Consignee: Libra Group, Balaji Dairy, Darbar Bara Goan Road, Bara Gaon, Karnal. It is the case of the complainant itself that the damage to the panels has been caused due to improper installation, whereas the OP has never rendered the services for the installation of the solar panels. It is the OP no.2, who has done the installation process purchasing the Solar system Material from the OP no.1 and hence, the OP cannot be held liable for the deficiency, if any, on the part of the OP no.2. It is further pleaded that OP always charge extra for the installation and commissioning process and a separate invoice is issued to the customer for the said services. Whereas, in the present case no such document has been placed on record by the complainant that the installation or the commissioning process has been done by the OP no.1, therefore, the OP no.1 cannot be held liable for the deficiency in service by a third party due to which the damage to the solar panel has been caused. The complainant failed to place on file a single document suggesting that he is involved in any transaction with the OP no.1. OP no.1 had only sold the Solar System Materials to the OP no.2 however the OP no.1 had not installed the Solar System material at the address Libra Group, Balaji Dairy, Darbar Bara Goan Road, Bara Gaon, Karnal or any other address. It is the OP no.2 or third party installed the Solar System Material in their address hence, the OP no.1 is not liable for anything happened due to wrong installation of Solar System Materials. Installation of Solar System Materials in location can only be done by the Expert who are equipped with modern technology of installation process and the OP no.1 has excellent list of experts who are dealing with the installation process every day. Had the complainant got the Solar System Panel/materials installed by the OP no.1 then there is less chances of damage of said solar system by Wind upto speed of 150 K.M. per hour as the OP no.1 uses such types of technology which protects the solar panel from such type of natural calamities. Even the wind upto speed of 150 KM per hour can be controlled and sustained if the installation is done properly by using latest technology and structure is constructed as per size, weight etc. of Solar Panel and materials however it seems that the OP no.2 had installed the Solar System Materials from those who were not expert due to which the foundation and installation of Structure of Solar System Materials was done poorly and basic structure was very weak. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 has never been officially appointed for the inspection of the solar panels, still as a goodwill of the company one representative of the OP no.1, vide a whatsapp text has informed the representative of the OP no.2 that installation is not proper and deficiencies be removed before the storm season so that the damage to the panels could be prevented. From the bare perusal of the terms and conditions of warranty, the physical damage to the panels due to improper installation of the panels which has been done by a third party instead of OPs, could not be covered under the warranty and hence no question of providing warranty to the complainant arises. The entire plaint fails to disclose any cause of action against the OP no.1. The complainant has not placed on record  single document which demonstrate that the complainant purchased the solar system/materials from the OP no.1. Infact, the solar system/materials are purchased by the OP no.2 hence, no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. 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; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that after purchase of the material from OP no.1 did and completed the installation of panel and other whole solar system, as per the instructions and drawing provided by the OP no.1. There was no fault on the part of the OP in the installation of panel and other entire solar system. However, it is submitted that the entire material was not manufactured by OP no.1 and the OP no.1 has supplied the material of some other suppliers/companies. As such the OP no.2 is not responsible in any form or manner to the loss occurred to the complainant. It is further pleaded that OP no.1 had given guarantee/warrantee/condition regarding the reasonable and well performance of the material of the solar system supplied by it, hence the OP no.1 is responsible for the guarantee of 25 years. OP no.2 is not responsible in any form or manner regarding warranty of the panel.  The total cost of the solar system came to Rs.35,81,760/- which includes the labour and installation charges of OP no.2 for installation of solar system. The OP no.2 sent many email messages to the OP no.1 and informed about the damage to solar system and also made so many telephonic calls to the OP no.1, but OP no.1 was not sincere in redressing the problem/complaint regarding the damage and loss to the solar system of the complainant. It is further pleaded that it is the duty of the OP no.1 to bear the warranty as per the undertaking given by the OP no.1. The official of the OP no.2 and OP no.2 himself visited the site and on inspection found and came to know that 75 Modules were damaged due to the blowing wind and the entire system of the solar panel was damaged and stopped its functioning. Only the OP no.1 is liable to repair/replace the panels and other damaged structures and also to bear the expenses of re-installation. After the installation of panels and entire solar system, the engineers of OP no.1 visited at the site and after thorough inspection and checking, the engineers of OP no.1 found and stated that the panels were rightly installed. It is further pleaded that 75 panels were found damaged due to poor quality and improper drawing, as a result of which the air could pass through the panels, which resulted into damaging the panels and solar system. The engineers of OP no.1 visited at the site after damage of solar system and on inspection, they found that the solar system damaged due to wrong drawing/design, due to which air was not able to pass through the panels which resulted into the damaging of the panels and solar system. The material used for the solar system was of poor/inferior quality and the batteries were also of inferior quality. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of bill dated 26.10.2018 Ex.C1, copy of delivery challan dated 18.10.2018 Ex.C2, copy of e-way bill dated 28.10.2018 Ex.C3, copy of packing list Ex.C4, copy of delivery challan Ex.C5, cop of E-way bill dated 20.10.2018 Ex.C6, copy of packing list of two pages Ex.C7, copy of invoice dated 14.01.2019 Ex.C8, copy of E-way bill Ex.C9, copy of Module and due to wind pressure Ex.C10, copy of invoice dated 27.09.2018 Ex.C11, copy of Tax invoice dated 26.09.2018 Ex.C12, copy of RPK Green Trading BOM packing list dated 24.09.2018 Ex.C13, copy of letter dated 18.05.2020 Ex.C14, copy of letter to OP no.1 Ex.C15, copy of Libra Group letter to OP no.1 dated 18.05.2020 Ex.C16, copies of letters dated 16.06.2020, 23.06.2020, 27.06.2020, 20.08.2020, 21.08.2020, 27.08.2020, 20.08.2020, 31.08.2020, 05.09.2020,  and 18.05.2020 Ex.C17 to Ex.C26, copy of letter by complainant to OP no.1 for loss of solar plant Ex.C27, copy of letter dated 18.05.2020 to 23.06.2020 Ex.C28, copy of letters dated 23.06.2020 and 27.06.2020 regarding damage of solar plant Ex.C29 and Ex.C30, copy of letter dated 20.08.2020 to 05.09.2020 Ex.C31, copy of warranty statement dated 27.09.2018 Ex.C32 and closed the evidence on 25.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Simranjit Singh Ex.OP1/A, copy of invoice dated 08.09.2018 Ex.OP1, copy of challan dated 27.09.2018 Ex.OP2, cop of tax invoice dated 26.09.2018 Ex.OP3, copy of delivery challan dated 18.10.2018 Ex.OP4 and Ex.OP5, warranty card Ex.OP6 and closed the evidence on 07.03.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             OP No.2 has tendered no evidence despite availing several opportunities. On 23.01.2024 OP no.2 neither tendered any evidence nor anyone appeared on behalf of OP no.2, hence OP no.2 was proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 23.01.2024 of the Commission.

 8.            We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

 9.            Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that complainant purchased and got installed a solar system of 41.6KW from the OPs. The total cost of solar system material was Rs.35,81,760/-.  At the time of installation, the OPs assured the complainant that if any damage and fault occurred in the solar system, they would be liable to repair or refund the cost of Solar system alongwith installation charges. On 12.05.2020, due to fast wind, 75 Module were damaged and the entire system of the solar panel was damaged and stopped its functioning. The complainant contacted the OPs and narrated the entire facts. He further argued that 75 panels were damaged due to faulty and improper drawing of the OPs. The complainant has suffered a huge financial loss due to non-functioning of the solar panels. Complainant requested the OPs to repair/replace the panels but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. The solar panel purchased by the complainant for commercial purpose, thus complainant does not come under the definition of consumer. OP had only sold the Solar System Materials to the OP no.2 however the OP had not installed the Solar System. The installation has been done by the OP no.2 itself. Installation of Solar System Materials in location can only be done by the Expert who are equipped with modern technology of installation process and the OP no.1 has excellent list of experts who are dealing with the installation process every day. Even the wind upto speed of 150 KM per hour can be controlled and sustained if the installation is done properly by using latest technology. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

12.           Complainant has alleged that due to supply of the inferior quality of solar panel and due to faulty and improper installation of the said panel, same has been damaged and complainant has suffered the huge loss. The onus to prove his version was relied upon the complainant but he has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. No Expert/Technical Report to ascertain the inferior quality of Panel and faulty installation of the Panel has been placed on file. Hence, without any expert report, it cannot be said that the solar panel was of inferior quality and installation is also improper and faulty.

 13.          Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of merits and same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
Dated:04.10.2024

         President,

      District Consumer Disputes                           

      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                   ( Neeru Agarwal)            (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                      Member                        Member