Makhan Singh filed a consumer case on 30 Mar 2022 against Sukhman Solar in the Fatehgarh Sahib Consumer Court. The case no is CC/18/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 20 Apr 2022.
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATHGARH SAHIB.
Complaint Case No:18 of 2019
Date of Institution: 16.04.2019
Date of Decision: 30.03.2022
Makhan Singh, son of Late Sh. Teja Singh, R/o House no.713, Ward no.15, Street No.6, Sirhind –Bassi Road, Near Jyoti Sarup Mor, Fatehgarh Sahib, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
...........Complainant
Vs.
Second Address :- Mandeep Singh , serving in Power Com Grid,66 KW PSPCL, Department , office at G.T.Road, Sirhind, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib.
..........Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019
Quorum
Sh.Pushvinder Singh, President
Ms.Shivani Bhargwa, Member
Sh.Manjit Singh Bhinder, Member
Present: Complainant in person.
Sh.T.S.Dhiman, Counsel for OP no.1.
Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal , Joint Director of OP no.2.
Sh. Sumit Kumar Gupta, counsel for OP no.3
ORDER
By Pushvinder Singh, President
Sh. Suresh Kumar Goyal , Joint Director of PEDA i.e Op no.2 appeared in the Commission and he has stated that entire money of subsidy of Solar system has already been deposited in the account of the complainant. The complainant has also made a statement that PEDA has deposited an amount of Rs.51,975/- in his bank account bearing no. 15770100007272 of UCO Bank as subsidy of Solar System.
2 This complaint was filed by the complainant for directing OPs to pay subsidy of Rs.45,000/- on Solar System. The subsidy has already been paid by the PEDA to the complainant, so relief claimed by the complainant of subsidy has been satisfied . The complainant has claimed Rs.50,000 /- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.
Sh Suresh Kumar Goyal , Joint Director of PEDA has stated that they have paid the subsidy amount to the complainant as and when received from the Government and when request received from the OP no. 1. Ld. counsel for the opposite party no.1 requested that the amount of subsidy was to be paid by the PEDA and OP no.1 was not liable to pay the subsidy amount to the complainant . Previously the complaint was filed by the complainant against OP no.1 only and OP no.1 had appeared in this commission and filed an application for impleading PEDA as party, which was allowed by this Commission. Notice was issued to PEDA and payment of subsidy was made by PEDA to the complainant after issuing notice to PEDA. all the circumstances of the present complaint, we find that when the complainant did not receive the subsidy then he was forced to file the present complaint and OP no.1 who installed the Solar system should have assisted the complainant for early release of subsidy . So the OP n o.1 should pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation and costs of litigation expenses. Accordingly the complaint is allowed partly to the extent that OP no.1 will pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 30 days. File be consigned to record room. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the complainant and the OPs through registered post as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
March 30, 2022
(Pushvinder Singh)
President
(Shivani Bhargava)
Member
(Manjit Singh Bhinder)
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.