IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

                    Wednesday the 03^rd  day of November, 2021

                               Filed on 11.12.2019

Present

1.  Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)

2.  Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)

                                                          In

                                         CC/No.332/2019

                                                     Between

Complainant:-                                                                  Opposite parties:-

    Sri. M.R.Hari,                                             1.       Pom Systems  & Services Pvt. Ltd

Harisree                                                                #75,6^th Main  3^rd Phase  

Kuruppankulangara.P.O                                        Peeniya Industrial Area

Cherthala- 688539                                                Banglore-560058

(Party in person)                                                   (Adv. P.Deepu)

                                                                   2.       The Director

                                                                             Anert, Thaikkadu.P.O                                                                                           Thiruvananthapuram

                                                                             (Party in Person)

                                                     O R D E R

SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)

This complaint is filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

1. Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-

Complainant installed 1KW Solar Power Plant referral No. SRP/2012/00563(it shown in other document as SRC/2012/5063) from 1^st opposite party on 23/7/2013.

It was given 3.75 units power on 2013 summer season.  But on May 2014 it was diminished 0.3 – 1.5 units.  It was informed to the 2^nd opposite party, but not responded.  After 2 ½ years from the installation of the system the batteries became charging.

          Whenever the complainant informed the defect to the 1^st opposite party, regularly the technician named Joymon visited and inspected the system and all the defects were low power backup. Even though opposite party reported in the service records to direct the complainant to maintain the battery water level, it was the responsibility of 1^st opposite party to water maintenance of the battery being the system contains 5 years warranty.

Though the defects started in the year 2014 extra charging needed reported only on 29/4/2018. But the expert opinion in this field was that the extra charging of the batter will not sustain as of the fresh battery.  Thereafter on 2/7/2018 the opposite party reported in the service records to replace the battery. On these occasions the 2^nd opposite party has not intervened in the matter.  There was no development in power back up even after replacing one battery on 30/8/2018.

          On 17/10/2018 the technician of 1^st opposite party, Jithinkrishnan reported one battery replacement in the system.  Thereafter the complainant informed it to the 2^nd opposite party and engineers came and inspected the system and intimated the replacement of one more battery to 1^st opposite party. Even though the 1^st opposite party agreed to replace the new officer holding charge in the section concerned on 22/7/2019 replied that the matter may be reported to 2^nd opposite party.  But both the opposite parties were not willing to redress the grievance of the complainant.  Hence this complaint seeking reliefs to meet the expenses by the opposite parties, to be made for replacement of inverter Rs.21,000/-, cost of  3 defected batteries  Rs.45,000/-, loss sustained for 2 ½ years Rs.8621/- and cost  Rs.1000/-. Total amount Rs.75,621/-

2.      Opposite parties 1 and  2 filed version separately.  Version of 1^st opposite party:-

          The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The 1^st opposite party installed the Solar Power system in the house of complainant.  The 1^st opposite party did not made any promise regarding the  quality of power got from the system and no such agreement also existed.

          At the time of installation of the system the 1^st opposite party described its working and circumstances to change of production of power such as

1. On rainy or cloudy days the Solar Panel will be diminishing its production of power.
2. It is to be decreased the production of power when the panel was not cleaned within a month
3. If the water level of the battery is not maintained the power will be diminished.  It is the duty of the consumer to maintain the water level of the battery.
4.  The load connected must be under the capacity of the inverter
5. It is  to be make sure that there is no shade on the panel.
6. It is to be installed the battery and inverter at a safe place with airy and dry place.

The working of the solar system of the complainant was defected only due to the non compliance of the above mentioned directions of the user’s manual and there for 1^st opposite party is not responsible to the same.1^st opposite party’s service engineer regularly inspected the system and gave maintenance whenever it needs.Even though the warranty period ended on 23/7/2018 the 1^st opposite party replaced the battery in the system. The 1^st opposite party is willing to give maintenance if any in future also.It is only the negligence of the complainant to maintain the system as directed by the 1^st opposite party which causes the defects in working of the system.There was no deficiency in service from the part of the 1^st opposite party.Hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost of the 1^st opposite party.

3.      Version of  2^nd opposite party is as follows:-

The role of 2^nd opposite party is to facilitate the beneficiaries of Kerala intending to install Solar Power Plants with Central Financial Assistance (CFA) and State Subsidy if any, available from time to time.2^nd opposite party’s role is limited to a facilitator only and further process are bound by the agreement made between the complainant and the Empanelled Agency, it is 1^st opposite party in this case.

For processing the implementation of the scheme 2^nd opposite party had invited expression of interest from the approval channel partners of MNRE and published the list of empanelled agencies in 2^nd opposite party’s website.Registration Process also initiated by 2^nd opposite party for selecting beneficiaries in the scheme.The detailed guidelines of the program, list of empanelled agencies with the rates quoted by them and format of work order, agreement etc.are alsopublished in website of 2^nd opposite party.Beneficiaries have freedom to select the agency according to their choice.

The beneficiary, after selecting the agency of his choice, shall invite them for a pre-installation survey and if the site is feasible, he shall issue a work order and enter into an agreement with the selected empanelled agency.They are also required to submit the pre- installation Survey report copy of work order and agreement executed between himself and the agency to the concerned District Office of ANERT for consideration of release of subsidy.

After installation and commissioning the beneficiary shall submit an undertaking to release the subsidy.On the basis of that upon calculation the 2^nd opposite party made subsequent process of giving subsidy on receiving the satisfactory report from the beneficiary. Payment condition, warranty etc are to be clearly listed in the agreement executed between the beneficiary and the empanelled agency.

As per the terms and conditions it is the responsibility of the 1st opposite party they had installed the Solar Power Plant system to rectify the complaint and maintain the warranty conditions.Hence the complaint may be settled between the complainant and 1^st opposite party.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitle to get the reliefs sought for in the complaint?
3. Reliefs and costs?
5.  
6.  

PW1, the complainant filed chief affidavit in tune with the complainant and got marked Ext.A1 to A4.

RW1 is the Power of Attorney Holder of 1^st opposite party, he filed proof affidavit in tune with the version of 1^st opposite party and got marked Ext.B1.

District Project engineer of 2^nd opposite party filed chief affidavit, examined as RW1 and got marked Ext.B2 to B6.

Admittedly the complainant had installed a solar power panel from 1^st opposite party. All the preliminary process of installation were arrived at the control of 2^nd opposite party they are the Nodel Agency of both Central and State Government for implementing the said system.1^st opposite party is the Empanelled Agency; they installed and commissioned the system as agreed between PW1 and 1^st opposite party.The sole allegation of the PW1 in the complaint and chief examination was that the solar power plant installed by the 1^st opposite party in his house was found defective from the beginning of its installation and commission and therefore he had sustained financial loss and the same is to be compensated by opposite parties 1 and 2.In this connection it is to be noted that Ext.B6 is the undertaking executed and signed by PW1 in which he had undertaken the maintenance of the system for atleast 5 years from the date of installation.Coupled with the above on perusal of Ext.B1, the Tabular Battery maintenance tips, it is understood that it is thedirection given to the beneficiary, here PW1 to maintain the system by providing water filling in the battery cleaning of panel, placing of inverter at safety place etc.In a plain reading of contents of the Ext.B1 it does not need any technical experience to maintain the system.More over in Ext.A3 letter issued by 2^nd opposite party to PW1, informing the selection of his application and subsequent proceedings in which the 2^nd opposite party categorically stated the availability of hand book regarding the scheme and directed to receive thesame by showing the letter or acknowledgment of 2^nd opposite party.PW1 also admitted during cross examination that he had attended an orientation programme conducted by 2^nd opposite party explaining the said scheme.

It is also shown in warranty and maintenance that the beneficiaryshould maintain and operate the system properly for a minimum period of5 years, and any failure to do so will require that thebeneficiary should refund the subsidy availed.Beneficiary will be required to execute an undertaking to this effect before receiving the subsidy.According to the above wording it is the obligation and responsibility of the beneficiary to keep maintenance of the system for a minimum period of 5 years.Further it noted that on perusal of Ext.A2 service report of the system, in question having 8 numbers in which the first 2 reports were the reports of2014.As alleged by PW1 it was realized that the complaint occurred from a shot span of time.But on the part of rectification done in the service report the problem was likely to be solved and no further comments or remarks had been made by the complainant.Thereafter a long period 2 ½ years back the next problem arised in the system and rectification done by the service person of the 1^st opposite party.On 27/12/2017 it was found the defect of low water level in 2 batteries and terminal got corrosion.That itself might have reasoned the problem affected the entire system.

The statement averred in the complaint and deposition of PW1 that the 1^st opposite party did not give the Brochure to the complainant isnot swallowed without a pinch of salt.In our knowledge every system likely to this is having a hand book which explained the methods how to keep the system and its working.Without knowing the said method or its guidelines one could not keep or use the product or the system defect less even in its minimum of life time.Otherwise it needs highly technical knowhow.Filling of water in battery, cleaning of panel, keeping the inverter in safety place etc. can be handled by a common man as instructed in Ext.B1.Firstly the fault was found at the initial stage of installation ie, 2014 and this complaint was filed on 11/12/2019. At the point of detecting the fault, he could have filed the complaint for redressal of his grievance at the earlier. The complainant had used the product for the maximum period of warranty of 5 years and above. After utilizing the product for maximum warranty period, he filed this complaint.

Further the burden is upon the complainant to prove the loss sustained by the defective system, if any.Accordingly there was no such piece of cogent evidence brought out by PW1 other than his own calculation.It is also noted that the complainant need not seek any relief for redressing the defect, if any caused on the product or the system to the complied by the opposite parties.In the said circumstance nothing happened as negligence or deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.Hence we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get the relief sought for in the complaint.

In the result the complaint stands dismissed.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 03^rd  day of November, 2021.

         Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)

                                               Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1          -        Hari(Complainant)

Ext.A1       -        Letter dtd. 18/9/2019                                         

Ext.A2       -        Service Report

Ext.A3       -        Letter dtd.25/3/2013      

Ext.A4       -        Copy of Complaint  

Evidence of the opposite parties:-

RW1          -        Balasankar Menon(Witness)    

RW2          -        Amalnath.V.N(Witness)

///True Copy ///

To     

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                Senior Superintendent

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-