Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/90/2023

JASJEET SINGH VAID - Complainant(s)

Versus

SILRES ENERGY SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

ER. SANDEEP SURI

18 Sep 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/90/2023
Date of Institution	:	17/02/2023
Date of Decision	:	18/09/2024

 

 

JASJEET SINGH VAID S/o SH.COL AJIT SINGH VAID, R/o H.No.1335, Sector 33C, Chandigarh.

Complainant

Versus

 

1. SILRES ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, 9th Floor, Bascon Futura, New No.10/2, Old No.56L, Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600017, through Shri Pashupati Goplalan, Managing Director.

 

2 SILRES ENERGY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, 9th Floor, Bascon Futura, New No.10/2, Old No.56L, Venkatnarayana Road, T. Nagar, Chennai 600017, through Shri Mukul Ojha, Chief Operating Officer.

 

.....Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                

ARGUED BY	:	Sh.Kartik, Advocate for Complainant.
	:	Sh.Padamkant Dwivedi, Advocate for OP(s).

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Averments are that the complainant placed his order on 4.6.2022 for the installation of solar system at the cost of Rs.4,44,958/- in which advance payment of Rs.4.22 lacs paid as per demands by OP’s. As per this timeline 95% payment was made by the complainant. The balance of 5% was to be paid on the successful completion of the installation as per the specifications agreed. On 26.06.2022 the OP completed the process of installation, the same was to be installed and made totally functional within a period of 3 weeks as per the initial promise of OP's. From the beginning the OP's were found to be not technically sound in the installation and from day one there were issues in the process of the installation. The installation failed to work in accordance the standards and efficiency which was required as promised. The OP's from the beginning were not clear about the technical requirement of installation of the same on 3 phase system grid System. The installed Solar system turned out to be having latent manufacturing defect, as it would not generate power, if it does not constantly get certain load on all the 3 phases of the domestic load. The same was in the knowledge of the OPs from the very beginning as the installation was to be made on the internal 3 phase circuit and the same was not to be routed to the city grid. This was brought to the notice of Mr. Mukul, the COO (ANN C-2) and also to the CEO (Mr. Gopalan) (ANN C-3), that such a situation would rarely arise in a domestic load consumption situation, of all 3 phases becoming critical during non-peak summer and least of all during winter months, when the load on all 3 phases will not be there. The same has resulted in no generation of power, thereby defeating the purpose of investing in the solar system. This fact was hidden from the complainant during his interaction with the OP Company's representatives, and had never been appraised of this fact, in such a case the complainant would not have opted for the solar solution provided by the company. Mr.Alok, the local engineer, and other members of the team responsible for the installation and other experts, tried to rectify this problem but failed to do so. This was repeatedly brought to the notices of Mr. Mukul (ANN C-2) but the response was negative as would be evident from the fact that no engineer competent was detailed to rectify this problem. On 16.8.2022 and 27.8.2022 the complainant also sent communication by registered post but there was no response of OP (Annexure C-5). Hence, is the present consumer complaint.
2.     OPs contested the consumer complaint, filed their written reply and stated that the complainant had ordered a power plant with Zero Export Device and the same was delivered to him. At the time of purchase of system, the complainant chose to install the "Zero Export Device" and was explained that the power generated by the Solar Power Plant cannot be exported and the generation will be restricted by the consumption of the household. Since the load on one of the phases at the site of the complainant was low, the power generation was low for all the 3 phases. This is in line with the standard operating procedure of the Zero Export Device connected in an inverter. The complainant was made well aware about the Zero Export Device. A copy of installation completion certificate dated 26.06.2022 is annexed herewith as Annexure OP-2. It is also submitted that the 6k Wp Grid Tied Solar Photovoltaic System was successfully installed and commissioned by the Ops and the system was working in good condition and the performance on the system was also satisfactory. In fact, the complainant had himself commented "Excellent Execution Done". A copy of Plant Commissioning Certificate dated 27.06.2022 is annexed herewith as Annexure OP-5. The solar system was also made functional as per the promise. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.     Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.     Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.     We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
6.     The main grievance of the complainant is that the solar system installed by the OPs would not generate power that too nowhere near the optimal/specified level and is having latent manufacturing defect.
7.     On perusal of OP-5, it is observed that the complainant has issued a “Plant Commissioning Certificate”. The complainant himself has certified that the system is working in good condition and the performance of the system is satisfactory. The said certificate is duly singed by the complainant.
8.     Moreover, allegation with regard to the system supplies & installed having inherent manufacturing defect, the complainant has not adduced any report of the technical expert, that the system is having inherent manufacturing defect.
9.     In Maruti Udyog Ltd. vs. Hashmukh Laxmi Chand (2009) 3 CPJ 229  it was held that manufacturing defect is more than an ordinary defect which can be cured by replacing the defects, is fundamental basic defect which creeps while manufacturing machine. To prove such defects opinion of an expert is a necessary which was not forthcoming in this case.
10.     In Sukhvinder Singh vs. Classic Automobile I(2013) CPJ 47 NC held that to prove manufacturing defect, report of  expert is necessary. Burden of proof is on complainant. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Union Territory Commission, Chandigarh in Kawaljit Singh vs. Broadway Auto Engg. III(2014) CPJ 212.

11.    In view of the aforesaid discussion and the reasons recorded hereinbefore, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the consumer complaint, being meritless, is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

12.     Pending miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
13.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

18/09/2024			[Pawanjit Singh]
Ls			President
			[Surjeet Kaur]
			Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
			Member