O R D E R

Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 for getting a relief against the opposite parties.

                   2. The case of the complainant is briefly stated as follows:  In order to save electricity and for overcoming acute electricity shortage the complainant opted to install a Roof Top Solar Power Unit  as per the statement by notification of the 4^th opposite party Anert.  Altogether 14 companies were short listed by 4^th opposite party for this product.  Among the 14 companies the 1^st opposite party is one of the short listed approved companies by 4^th opposite party for this product.  Among the 14 companies, the 1^st opposite party is one of the short listed approved companies by 4^th opposite party.  The 2^nd opposite party herein is the business dealer of the 1^st opposite party.  The 3^rd opposite party is the business head of 1^st opposite party to the State of Kerala.  The complainant decided to install the bigger system of Solar Power System in his house in order to save the consumption of K.S.E.B’s electricity.  According to him, his daily usage of electricity is less than 10 units per day for the last several years.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties tried to believe the complainant that the system will more beneficial at sun shine time and more electricity can be produced due to the help of sunshine due to so many reasons.  The complainant was suffering low voltage of power supply and interrupted power supply, which are highly affected to the complainant.  The representatives of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, has given assurance to the complainant that with this power system even air condition unit can also be functioned and through this system the deficiency and irregular service of power supply can be redressed.  On the basis of the above direction and assurances the complainant decided to install Solar Panel system having capacity of 3 KW, Stellar plus, Voltanic panel 250 Wx12, PCU of 3 KVA, Batteries 180 AH TT X 16 at a cost of Rs.5 lakhs, it will produce an average energy of more than 12 unit per day on normal sunshine days and much more during bright and shiny days.  That is why the complainant choosed Su-Kam Power System 3 KW Stellar Plus.  The features of the system is as follows:

1. The average power consumption of the complainant was slightly less than 10 units per day for the last several years and the said will produce more than 12 units of power, as per the assurance given by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties,
2. The 12 panels in the said system will produce more than 10 units depending on the brightness of sun, according to the assurance given by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.
3. 180 X 16 batteries used in the said system can store the power for night use also.
4. This company is an ISO 9001 company and as per the impression given by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and the products are good and reputed, as per the assurances given by 2^nd opposite party.
5. Su-Kam is short listed by Anert for Roof Top Solar System Projects hence the complainant thought he will get a guaranteed performance.

         3. The said unit was installed on 28^th March 2013 and the complainant paid Rs. 5 lakhs and started it functioning, the opposite party 1 and 2 did not give any further information regarding the working of the system to the complainant.  The complainant examined the functioning of the system noting down the KSEB power usage and power controlling unit reading from 29.03.2013 onwards and found that the system is not functioning properly.  Subsequently, he approached the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party to note the defect in the system.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties sent their technician to cure the defects.  But they also thoroughly failed to cure the defect occurred to the system.  The opposite parties failed to give the reason for the failure of the working of the system also.  An Engineer connected to 1^st opposite party, one Sivakumar of Bangalore checked the system and informed the complainant that the complainant is using more energy, i.e. why the reading of the KSEB meter is high?  This explanation is also not true.  According to him, he is only consuming less than 10 units of electricity per day.  The things are going worse as stated above, the complainant contacted the Director of 4^th opposite party Anert, Thiruvananthapuram for rectifying the defect noted.  But the opposite party have also not turned up properly. On several days the complainant approached different representatives of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party, a reason or otherwise, they also did not act properly.  One of the representatives of 2^nd opposite party one Philip Thomas informed him “we regret for the inconvenience you had after the instillation of our product.  We assure you that, we will put our all efforts in rectifying the points raised and ensure you that your investment reaps right kind of benefit to you in the long run”.  The said Philip Thomas informed to one Sivakumar who are the authorized persons of the 1^st opposite party “Your description and findings are OK, but what are your recommendation on the corrective actions needed, which will erase the problem completely.  We need to ensure that our valued customer is satisfied after putting the huge investment”.  Even after this stage also no action has been taken from the side of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.   In order to prove his case he produced KSEB power reading from 06.07.2012 to 07.03.2014 and the difference occurred after the installation of the power system.

Power consumption of the complainant before installing Solar System.

KSEB reading on 06.07.2012                                             =          12650

KSEB reading on 08.03.2013                                             =          14981

Power consumption from 06.07.2012 to 08.03.2013       =          2331 units.

No. of days from 06.07.2012 to 08.03.2013                      =             244 days

Average power consumption during this period                =          2331/244

                                                                                                =          9.553 units

This 9.553 units is the average consumption before the installation of Solar System.

Solar System was installed and commissioned at 19.30 hrs. on 28^th March 2013

KSEB power consumption after solar fixing.

KSEB reading on 08.05.2013                                             =          15375 units

KSEB reading 07.03.2014                                                  =          16849 units

Power consumption from 08.05.2013 to 07.03.2014

No. of days from 08.05.2013 to 07.03.2014                        =        302 days

Average consumption from KSEB during this days            =   1474/302 = 4.880 

                                                                                                            units.

Power got from Solar system                                           =   9.553 – 4.880

  =  4.673 units.

After spending more than five lakh rupees,

the complainant got 4.673 units from the

Solar system

As per the notification by Anert Circular

No.4351/ANERT/10000SRTP/12-13

Dated 24/08/2012 Para 5, Warranty and

Maintenance.

a.  Total system will have a warranty for 5 years.  P.V. module will have a performance warranty for their output peak watt capacity (not less than 90% at the end of 12 years and 80% at the end of 25 years).

           4. According to the complainant, the opposite parties told that the solar unit will produce more than 12 units per day and when calculating the unit consumption of KSEB, the assured production is not come out from the solar system.

                   5. Opposite parties 1 and 2 offered that the Govt. of India will provide the financial aid of Rs.81,000/- or 30% cost of the Solar Power System, which ever is lesser and a state subsidy of Rs.39,000/- will also be available.  These amounts were also not received by the complainant.  In order to install this solar power system the complainant spent Rs.5 lakhs as cost of solar panel and its accessories and for keeping the battery a room is constructed by the complainant which cost is also comes Rs.25,000/-.  The cause of action for this complaint is arose on 15.01.2014 on which date a demand notice was sent to the opposite parties for demanding compensation to the complainant.  Hence the complainant request this Forum to allow the complainant to realize an amount of Rs.8,25,000/- from the opposite parties jointly and severally and from their assets and directed opposite parties to remove the solar system from the house of the complainant and allow the cost of the proceedings to the complainant from the opposite parties.  In this case, this Forum issued notices to all opposite parties and all the notices are duly served. 

                   6. On 25.10.2014, 1^st and 3^rd opposite party set exparte and 2^nd and 4^th opposite parties are only filed version in this case.

                   7. The contention of the 2^nd opposite party is briefly stated as follows:  According to 2^nd opposite party this case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  There is no bonafide for the complainant to file this case except for malafide intention of getting illegal profit.  According to him, he admitted that from him the complainant purchased the solar panel system and after the purchase of this system he entertained complaint from the complainant and he informed this complaints to 1^st and 3^rd opposite party in time.  This 2^nd opposite party had given all necessary directions for the smooth functioning of the system to the complainant.  But complainant did not follow the direction properly and committed mistake in the functioning of the system.  Regarding the “warranty clause” stated in the complaint the 2^nd opposite party had no liability or responsibility to the complainant for that fact the 1^st opposite party has to give explanation to the complainant.  As authorized dealer of the 1^st opposite party 2^nd opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service, hence this Forum dismiss this petition by allowing the cost to the 2^nd opposite party.

                   8. 4^th opposite party filed version which is stated as follows:  The system installed by the complainant is not part of any of schemes of Anert.  According to him, the agency installed the system is one of the empanelled agencies of Anert specifically for the Anert scheme “10000 roof top power plant programme”.  This empanelment is only for the scheme of 1 kw solar panel installed under the scheme above.  Anert has no control over the supplier on his business deals installed by the complainant is of 3 kw capacity which is not covered under any scheme of Anert.  4^th opposite party is not at all a party in the purchase deal between the complainant and supplier in this case.  The visit of the Anert Dist. Engineer to the location is only a goodwill gesture to advise possible corrective steps.  This is no way puts the responsibility of rectification of the plant as Anert.  Hence the matter between the complainant and opposite party may be settle from this Forum. 

                   9. When considering the pleading of both sides, we have to consider the following points.

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. If it is maintainable whether relief sought for is allowable or not?

        10. On the side of the complainant, the complainant examined as PW1 and he filed proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination and marked Exts. A1 to A11.  Ext.A1 is the KSEB bill series, Ext.A2 is the copy of paper publication (marked as subject to proof).  Ext.A3 is the copy of the notification issued by Anert (4^th opposite party).  Ext.A4 is the quotation given to complainant by 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A5 is Copy of tax invoice.  Ext.A6 is the KSEB details prepared filed by the complainant.  Ext.A7 is the copy of the petition filed by the complainant to 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A8 is the copy of the petition sent to 4^th opposite party Mr. Jayaraj.  Ext.A9 is the copy of the petition given to 1^st opposite party.  Ext.A10 is the copy of the petition given to 2^nd opposite party.  Ext.A11 is the certificate issued by the KSEB Engineer, Konni.  On the date of adducing complainant evidence i.e. 06.01.2015 though the 2^nd opposite party and 4^th opposite party filed version in this case, did not turned up and cross examine the complainant in this case.  The chief affidavit and the exhibits marked are stands unchallenged due to the absence of cross-examination.

          11. For the sake of convenience of Point No.1 and Point No.2 can be consider together.

          12. Point Nos. 1 & 2:-  In the light of the above discussion we found that the petition is maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.  When we peruse the complaint and chief affidavit of PW1 it is seen that the chief affidavit is in terms of the complaint before the Forum.  It is clear from the testimony of PW1 that in order to save KSEB energy he decided to install the so called Solar System.  According to him, the 4^th and 5^th opposite parties were made to believe him for this installation.  In order to establish this aspect PW1 produced KSEB reading register for 8 months and the same is marked as Ext.A1.  Ext.A2 notice is issued by 4^th opposite party for the purpose of learning the public for the importance of solar installation and the notification to this effect is marked as Ext.A3.  The question issued by 3^rd opposite party is marked as Ext.A4 and Tax invoice is Ext.A5.  The Ext.A6 is the meter reading of the complainant after the installation of this Solar System Co. from 29.03.2013.  The complainant submitted by PW1 to there technicians of opposite parties are also marked as Exts.A7 to A10.  The complainant produced a certificate from a qualified electrician showing the defect and non-functioning of this system that is marked as Ext.A11.  When we consider the Ext.A1 to A5 it is a cogent undisputed evidence that the complaint totally believed the opposite parties and purchased this solar system.  Moreover, the Ext.A6 shows the meter reading after the installation of the solar system.  According to PW1, with the installation of this system no solar energy has produced by this system as claimed by the opposite parties.  As per Ext.A6 Page 2 it is seen that an average 3.616 unit of power is producing from this system.  Ext.A6 document is prepared by the complainant but the opposite parties are not turned or rebut this evidence.  Hence we entertain this evidence in favour of the petitioner.  Anyway it is seen from the documents produced by PW1 that the system installed is not properly functioning and it is not producing power as assured by the opposite parties.  The 4^th opposite party specifically admitted that 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are empanelled agencies of them.  The petitioner has not succeed to prove the responsibility of 4^th opposite party with regard to this transaction and installation.  Hence we are not found any mistake on the part of 4^th opposite party and 4^th opposite party is exonerated from all allegation on this petition. 

          13. The Ext.A11 the certificate issued by Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Konni regarding the present consumption of the electricity is very important when considering this petition.  Ext.A11 help us to come to a conclusion that the system is not producing energy as promised.  At this juncture, we have to consider the deficiency in service of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party and moreover the defective-functioning of the system has also come out in evidence.  The petitioner has an another contention to the effect that Govt. of India would provide a financial aid of Rs.81,000/- or 30% of the system which ever is lesser and a state subsidy of Rs.39,000/- which are also eligible to the petitioner.  Though the petitioner pleaded this fact no reliable evidence is brought out by the petitioner.  So there is no need of considering this contention.  The petitioner is succeeded to prove that system is defective and on the other side respondents are failed to repair the system properly.

          14. Though 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties not turned up before this Forum at the time of taking evidence of the petitioner as PW1, we carefully look in to the version of all the opposite parties.  They admitted the transaction and supply of the solar system and even admitted the warranty also.  In order to evade from the warranty 2^nd opposite party shifted the responsibility to 1^st opposite party.  Anyway indirectly they are admitting the warranty clause also.  It is clear from the evidence before the Forum that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party committed deficiency in service.

          15. Considering the above evidence in this case, we are come to a conclusion that the case is maintainable before this Forum and the Point No.1 found in favour of the petitioner.  The 2^nd Point also found in favour of the petitioner. 

          16. In the result, the petition allowed as follows:

1. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the petitioner as the cost of the Solar System with an interest of 10% from the date of order to till the realization.
2. The petitioner is entitle to realize a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) from 1^st and 2^nd opposite party with an interest of 10% from the date of this order. 
3. The petitioner is allowed to realize Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) as the cost of the case from 1^st and 2^nd opposite party.

             Declared in the Open Forum on this the 28^th day of February, 2015.

                                                                                      (Sd/-)

                                                                    P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                   (President)

Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member – 1)   :     (Sd/-)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member – II)       :     (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  :  A.T. George

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1  :  KSEB bill series. 

A2  :  Copy of paper publication (marked as subject to proof). 

A3  :  Copy of the notification issued by Anert (4^th opposite party). 

A4  :  Quotation given to complainant by 2^nd opposite party. 

A5  :  Copy of tax invoice. 

A6  :  KSEB details prepared filed by the complainant. 

A7  :  Copy of the petition filed by the complainant to 1^st opposite party. 

A8  :  Copy of the petition sent to 4^th opposite party Mr. Jayaraj. 

A9  :  Copy of the petition given to 1^st opposite party. 

A10 : Copy of the petition given to 2^nd opposite party.

A11 : Certificate issued by the Asst. Engineer, KSEB, Konni.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:  Nil.

                                                                                            (By Order)

                                                                                                                             (Sd/-)

                                                                                                            Senior Superintendent.

Copy to:- (1) A.T. George, Edayilemuriyil, Konni.P.O., Konni Taluk.

1. Managing Director, SUK-KAM Power System Ltd.,

         54 Sec.37, Udyog Vihar Ph VI, Gurgoan, Haryana,

         India – 122001.

1. Proprietor, Electro Business Corporation, Dealer of SUK-KAM Power   

     System Ltd., Near Thulamannil Textiles, Mamukku, Ranni.

1. Business Head of State of Kerala, SUK-KAM Power System Ltd.,

          Door No.37/449, Valluvassery House, Near K.R. Bhaskers,

          Kadavanthra Junction, Ernakulam – 682 020.

1. Director, ANERT, Thycadu.P.O., Thiruvananthapuram – 695 014.
2. The Stock File.