16. By the consent of both the sides, a Commissioner was appointed and he has inspected the units in the presence of both sides and submitted report Ex.C.17 and according to him, on the basis of the configuration of technical specifications of each system installed by the Opposite party, it is clear that the load required is 80 WP solar module and 12 V, 120 AH solar tubular battery with 10 Amps charge controller to run for all the loads for 4 hours at standard length of transmission line with proper gauge. In this case, the system is only 40 as per witness it is incorrectly typed as 50) WP solar module, 62 AH battery and excess in cable length, which is running load for maximum of 2 hours only. The customer informed that on one more solar module is added of 30 WP without up gradation of battery. Hence, the load may increase for some extent. <br /> 17. It is contended by the Opposite party that the Commissioner is not a qualified person, but the Commissioner is a Project Engineer (IREP) Zilla Panchayath, Mandya and according to his evidence, he is a Mechanical Diploma Holder and he is looking after the solar system installations scheme and hence, he has the knowledge of solar systems. Even though, he has not tested for 4 hours by burning the bulbs at the time of inspection, but according to him, he tested the system by burning bulbs for one hour and on calculation he has opined that the system is only for 2 hours use and according to him, the system must give 3 to 4 hours burning service of the bulbs for 3 days, even if there is no sun light. According to him, he has tested the units on the basis of the certificate and brochure issued by the Opposite parties. According to him, that the equipments are of good quality, but the cable provided from battery to each light is at a distance of more than 5 meters and therefore, there is loss of energy due to the more length of the cable. Therefore, the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties have not properly installed the solar lightings system providing service of lighting for 3 to 4 hours per day continuously, which is essential for the poultry centre. The Opposite parties have produced Ex.R.4 the load calculation sheet, but it is not signed by any technician or the company person except obtaining the signature of 1st Complainant and it is not proved as to whether it was read over and explained and 1st Complainant has understood. Ex.R.3 is the brochure of the lighting system and it is mentioned that these systems are designed typically to give a daily working time of 2 – 4 hours with a fully charged battery. But, the grievance of the complainant is the bulbs did not burn for 4 hours as promised by the dealer by issuing certificate Ex.C.6.<br /> 18. According to the complainant, in view of the defective lighting, he orally and telephonically informed, they did not turned up and even he sent a letter by registered post and did not rectify it. The complainant has produced Ex.C.13 complaining that they are not giving two hours lighting power and they have not responded in spite of telephone and it is served on 1st Opposite party by registered post as per Ex.C.14, but there is no reply. According to the 2nd Opposite party, the service was done on 16.04.2008 by the technician and it bears the signature of 1st Complainant and his signature is Ex.R.1 (a) and further on 27.05.2008, the technician inspected and service was given and 2nd complainant has put signature. The complainant has admitted that after his letter dated 08.02.2008, on 16.04.2008 as per Ex.R.2 (b) and Ex.R.1(a) the company technicians inspected and provided service. He has denied that on 27.05.2008, the company technician person inspected and the wife of the complainant has put the signature. When the customer complained and service report is at separate page when on 16.04.2008 entries made, the subsequent service on 27.05.2008 should be made in the service report not on the preventive maintenance visits. The Ex.R.1 & R.2 reveals that the signature of the 2nd Complainant wife are obtained by putting a mark and the technician is not examined to prove on what date actually he visited. According to the complainant, the signature of his wife had obtained, when the units were brought and kept in the house. On 23.09.2008, 2nd Opposite party issued the certificate stating that on 23.09.2008 they inspected the units and the solar system provided only 1.56 hour in one unit and 2.05 hour in another unit. This inspection is before filing of the complaint.<br /> 19. When 1st Opposite party issued the certificate that the solar system will provide 4 hours lighting heat to the poultry, but when it has given less then 2 hours lighting heat, naturally in the presence of the Commissioner report that the connection from the battery to the light is more than 5 meters, there is loss of energy and hence, the solar system provided to the complainants is defective nature and though the 2nd Opposite party has provided some service on two days, but they have not rectified to provide solar lighting system for 3 to 4 hours as provided in their brochure Ex.R.3 and thus Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. <br /> 20. The complainants have pleaded that due to want of sufficient lighting heat, chicks died and they made alternative arrangement for electricity and generator to provide lighting heat to the chicks. The complainant has produced the electric bills Ex.C.8 to C.11 and bill Ex.C.8 is for Rs.1,180/-, Ex.C.9 is for Rs.1,822/-, Ex.C.10 is for Rs.1,641/- and Ex.C.11 is for Rs.700/-, Ex.C.12 is for Rs.852/-. It is not the case of the Opposite party that these bills are not pertaining to electric connection to the poultry farm, and they are relating to flour mill. Therefore, it proves that the complainant has spent amount for electricity also for want of solar lighting system. <br /> 21. Even though the complainant did not produce the documents to prove the death of chicks and sustaining loss, but in his evidence and complaint, it is pleaded that for want of lighting system chicks died and sustained loss of Rs.60,000/- apart from the electricity, generator expenditure of Rs.18,000/-. After the arguments, with notice to the Opposite party Counsel, the complainant has produced 5 bills, which show death of chicks 247, 296, 499 and 226 and 296 and at the rate of Rs.2.40/- per Kg. and weight of each chick, the deductions are made and the complainant has calculated the loss. According to the complainant, these 5 bills are from 27.10.2007 to 31.12.2008. According to these calculation, complainant has sustained loss of more than Rs.7,000/-, but there is no reason to suspect the bills produced by the complainant. It is not the case that the chicks died to other reasons not for want of lighting heat provided by the solar system.<br /> 22. Therefore, considering the facts of the case, the claim of the complainants to some extent is exhogarative, because he has claimed Rs.10,000/- as transportation charges and interest of Rs.15,000/- on the loan and Rs.18,000/- for electricity and generator, mental compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.60,000/- for the died chicks. Admittedly, the solar system installed on 26.10.2007 as per the complainant and in writing he complained on 08.02.2008 about the defective solar system lighting. In view of the Commissioner report that the system materials are not defective except the cable system and in view of the bills stating the death of chicks, some loss is caused due to defective lighting system provided by Opposite parties and hence it is reasonable to assess the loss at Rs.7,000/- and it is necessary to give direction to Opposite parties to rectify the solar system. <br /> 23. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order;<br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite parties to rectify the cable system provided to the solar installation of the complainants with proper back up of the battery and further directed the Opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs.7,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 13th day of April 2009).<br /> <br /> (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)