DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 6th day of November, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 23/02/2021
CC/35/2021
Anu Deepu,
W/o.Deepu Parayil,
Parayil House,
Palakkayam (PO), Mannarkkad,
Palakkad – 678 591. - Complainant
(By Adv. M/s. John John & Chenthamarakshan A.)
Vs
Sabu Domanic,
S/o. Dominic Jacob,
Proprietor, V-Life Enterprises,
Kanjiram (PO), Mannarkkad,
Palakkad – 678 598. - Opposite party
(By Adv.M.C.Kuriachan)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Gist of complainant’s grievance is that the existing electrical connection and the electricity supplied by two solar panels were found inadequate for her requirements, especially for operating the aerator and air conditioners. Therefore at the instance of the OP, the complainant installed four solar panels supplied by the opposite party. The load supplied by the four panels were also found to be inadequate. She later came to find that the opposite party had supplied “Poly” system which supplied lower watt of electricity whereas the OP ought to have installed “Monoperk” system which converted 70% of absorbed solar energy. When the complainant’s sought for replacement the opposite party refused to replace the installation. Aggrieved thereby this complaint is filed seeking for return of the amounts expended along with cost and compensation.
- OP filed version contesting complaint pleadings and repudiating the same. The OP admitted the complainants pleadings to the extend that he had rendered services as stated. He also admitted to receiving Rs.1,10,000/- from the complainant. But the factual matrix bifurcates herein with the O.P. detailing his raising of demand for Rs. 29,890/- that the complainant ought to have paid, and the complainant’s husband manhandling the opposite party and the opposite party being forced to file a complaint before police authorities. It is as a counter blast to the opposite party’s claim for service charges and other amounts receivable that this complaint is filed. The complainant’s consumption is very much higher than what is stated before the Electricity Board and she ought to have availed a III phase connection considering the fact that the complainant has a very large fish tank in which aerators are functioning in the connection availed for functioning of residential equipments. The panels supplied by the complainant are not at all defective and sought for dismissal of complaint.
- The following issues were framed for consideration.
- Whether the solar panels installed by the OP is substandard in quality in violation of agreement as alleged by complainant ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Reliefs as to cost and compensation ?
4. (i) Complainant filed proof affidavit an marked Exts.A1 & A2. Complainant was examined as PW1.
Marking Exts.A1 & A2 were objected on the ground that the said documents were not proved in accordance with the bankers book of evidence and does not accompanied Section 65B certification. Since this commission is not bound by the Evidence Act and since the OP has no case at the said documents are forged or concocted said objections are overruled.
(ii) OPs filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.B7. Exts.B1 to B6(b) were marked through confrontation. OP was examined as DW1.
Issue No. 1
5. Complainant grieves that the opposite party was engaged to install four solar panels that would produce enough electricity for the functioning of aerators in her fish tank and air conditioners. Pursuant to a quote availed from the OP, the complainant paid Rs.1,10,000/- for the installed solar panels. But the said four panels were not adequate to supply electricity for the functioning of aforesaid equipments. It is under this circumstance that the complaint was filed.
6. Complaint pleadings were vehemently opposed by the opposite party. He contested that the connection of the complainant was per se illegal as the entire equipments for which the connection was availed from KSEB required III phase connection and not a single phase connection as is availed by the complainant. It is because of this over loading that there was tripping and resultant power failure. Poly system of panel and Monoperk system of panels should not be placed together. Panel was supplied as was chosen by the husband of the complainant.
7. As can be seen from a reading of the pleadings and evidence adduced this is a case full of technical intricacies. Further the understanding between the complainant and O.P. could not be presumed from the evidence adduced. Since the opposite party had repudiated complaint pleadings in toto, burden of proof lay on the complainant to prove her case. We cannot come to a studied conclusion unless the complainant proves at least the following points, in support of her pleadings:
1. Nature of agreement entered into between the parties with regard to the requisite power output.
2. Output of the 4 panels installed by the O.P.
3. Required watts of electricity for operating the aerator and Air Conditions?
4. Nature of electrical connections, ie. whether the output from the panel were directed to the aerator and air conditions?
5. Feasibility or permissibility or viability of placing Poly system of panel intermittently with Monoperk system of panels or its impact on output.
It was incumbent on the part of the complainant to avail the assistance of an Expert Commissioner to look into the technical aspects and get a report filed before this Commission so that we will be having a reliable source to lean on to come to a studied conclusion with regard to the disputes raised. Complainant having failed to do so, we are unable to come to a studied conclusion with the available pleadings and evidence.
8. Therefore we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove her case.
Issue No. 2
9. Findings in issue No.1 naturally lead to a conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
Issue No. 3
10. Pursuant to findings in the Issues above, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
11. Complaint is accordingly dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 6th day of November, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President Sd/-
Vidya A.
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Screen shot of transaction receipt.
Ext.A2 – Copy of invoice bearing No. 564 dated 22/11/2020
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 – Screen shot of particulars of solar panel supplied
Ext.B2 – Copy of invoice bearing No.68 dated 30/11/2020
Ext.B3(a) - Copy of test cum completion report of consumer installation dated 11/6/2018
Ext.B3(b) - Copy of electrical installation sketch
Ext.B4 – Copy of demand cum disconnection notice 23/10/21
Ext.B5 – Copy of tax invoice bearing no.67 dated 22/11/2020
Ext.B6 (a) & (b) – Reply obtained under RTI alongwith documents.
Ext.B7 – Copy of model procedure for determination of connected load from Kerala Electricity
Supply Code, 2014
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 – Anu Deepu (Complainant)
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:
DW1 – Sabu Dominic (OP)
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
