SMT.MOLYKUTTY MATHEW : MEMBER
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for an order directing the OP to refund Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant as the installation charge of the solar system and to pay Rs 2,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
The brief of the complaint :
The OP has approached the complainant in the month of December 2021 in the residential premises of the complainant and stated that this area is fit one for nstallation of the solar system. The OP convinced the complainant that he can even sell the electricity to the KSEB after his residential use of the electricity. As the electricity charges are raising and thinking about the future , the complainant agreed for the installation of solar system. At that time, the complainant enquired to OP about contacting the ANERT and subsidy offers by them. The OP told the complainant that the companies providing service to the ANERT are all not offering good performance that will be a headache for him. So believing the words of OP the complainant paid Rs.4,50,000/- to OP towards the installation of the solar system on 6/1/2022 and the system was installed on 13/1/2022. After installation of the solar system the complainant was expecting that electricity bill will be reduced. But the electricity bill was around Rs.16,000/- on that month . Thereafter also the electricity bills were high and it never reduced as assured by the OP. The complainant several times contacted the OP to come and do the needful. But the OP never visited the place. Then the complainant has issued a lawyer notice to OP dtd.23/8/2023 and the OP received the notice neither issued any reply nor contacted the complainant also. The act of OP the complainant caused much mental agony and financial loss. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Hence the complaint.
After filing this complaint notice issued to OP. The OP refused the notice and appeared before the commission and not filed version. The commission had to hold that the OP has not appeared before the commission and no version filed . As such this case came to be proceed against the OP as set exparte. Then the complainant filed a petition before the commission to appoint an expert commissioner to note the working condition of the solar system, the defects and damages of the solar system. Then Mr. Muhammed Rashid .K is appointed as the expert commissioner and he inspected the solar plant on 17/2/2024 and filed the report before the commission.
Even though the OP remained ex-parte it is for the complainant to establish the allegations made by him against the OP. Hence the complainant was called upon to produce evidence in the form of affidavit and documents. Accordingly the complainant has chosen to produce his affidavit along with 4 documents marking them as Exts.A1 to A4 documents and Ext.C1the expert report. The complainant was examined as PW1 in this case. So the OP remained absent in this case. At the end the Commission heard the case on merit.
Let us have a clear glance at the relevant documents of the complainant. Ext.A1 is the tax invoice (PMK Solar) dtd.6/1/2022 issued by OP for an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-. Ext.A2 is the manual (warranty card) issued by OP . Ext.A3 is the copy of lawyer notice send by complainant to OP dtd.23/8 /2023, Ext.A4 is the acknowledgment card. The complainant had paid an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- to OP for installation of the solar system on 6/1/2022 ie, shown in Ext.A1 document. The solar system was installed on 13/1/2022. After installation of the solar system the complainant was expecting that electricity bill will be reduced . But the electricity bill was around Rs.16,000/- on that month. Thereafter also the electricity bills were
high and it never reduced as assured by the OP. The complainant had installed the solar system believing the assurance and promises given by the OP after spending huge amount. As per the Ext.C1 report also noted that the solar panel installed shaded area, shade from nearby flat-morning upto 10.30 am, not clean well, solar system does not work during these time, ie, improper charging of the battery, other defects are also noted in Ext.C1 report. So there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. Under this circumstances we are of the considered view that the OP is directly bound to redressal the grievance caused to the complainant. So the OP is directly refund Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant for the installation charge of solar plant along with Rs.25000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.10000/- as litigation cost.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the OP to refund Rs.4,50,000/- to the complainant for the installation charge of solar plant along with Rs.25000/- as compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.10000/- as litigation cost within 30 days of receipt of this order. In default, the amount of Rs.4,50,000/- carries interest@ 12% per annum from the date of order till realization. If the opposite party fails to comply the order, the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Exts:
A1-Tax invoice dtd.6/1/22 issued by OP
A2- Manual issued by OP(warranty card)
A3-copy of lawyer notice
A4-acknowledgment card
C1- Expert report.
PW1-Hashim Vazhayil - complainant.
Sd/ Sd/ Sd/
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
Ravi Susha Molykutty Mathew Sajeesh K.P
eva
/Forwarded by Order/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
