SRI. SAJEESH.K.     : MEMBER

    The complainant has filed this complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction against the  OPs to give of Rs.89100/- as compensation  and Rs.1,50,000/- for mental agony for the deficiency of service on his part.

     The complainant in brief

   According to the complainant, on 28/1/2016 OP installed a solar panel and charging control in  complainant’s textiles shop after obtaining Rs.43,000/- from complainant.  The OP made  complainant to  believe that  complainant can get 4 unit of electricity  per day and there by he can save electricity.  However, from 28/1/2016 to 10/8/2016 no such unit were credited.  Thereafter complainant contacted OP, and after 7 months of repeated contact, on 11/8/2016 OP replaced the panel with a new one .  After that, from 11/8/2016 to 10/11/2017, complainant obtained total unit of 260 instead of 2560 units.  So, complainant constrained to use electricity from KSEB connection and sustained a loss of Rs.16100/-.  The complainant approached OP to rectify the issue ends in deaf ears.  Hence this complaint.

   After filing this complaint the commission has send notice to  OP and  OP entered appearance and filed their version.  In their version they raised the contention of impleading necessary party and the complainant took steps for impelading and amendment petition and their by 2^nd OP impleaded as party in this case.  After that commission has send notice to 2^nd OP and 2^nd OP entered appearance before the commission and filed their version accordingly.

Version of 1^st  OP in brief:

The 1^st OP denies the entire averments except those specifically admitted.  The 1^st  OP admitted the  purchase of solar panel but denies the entire averments regarding the promise of unit that complainant can save on the installation of solar panel, replacement of panel, battery charger etc.  The 1^st OP contended that, at the time of installation of solar panel, complainant insisted to install 2 solar panel of 250 watts which can be used only when there is no supply of electricity.  The complainant demanded to use the old inverter after which was used by him.  At that time, the 1^st OP warned the complainant that the solar panel will not work efficiently because of old inverter battery.  The 1^st OP obtained Rs.43,000/- for the solar panel of 500 watts.  Thereafter a new inverter and battery installed on the  demand of complainant and  the amount of inverter is Rs.27,000/- is still due from complainant.  Whenever the 1^st OP demanded the amount, the complainant started to make allegations. The solar panel was manufactured by V-Guard and intimated about the complaint of complainant and V Guard staff examined the system and reported no complaint with regard to the solar panel.  Moreover, 1^st OP contended that V Guard is the necessary party to the complaint.  There is no merits in this case and this complaint to be dismissed.

Version of 2^nd OP in brief:

  The 2^nd OP raised the contention that complainant is not a consumer since he is running a commercial venture having several staff.  All the averments regarding the assurance of 4 units per day assurance, loss of Rs.16100/- due to the additional usage of electricity from KSEB, replacement of panel expenditure of Rs.15000/- for installation of panel etc are not true and hence denied.  There is no evidence placed before  the commission to prove the allegation made in the complaint.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of OP towards complainant?
2. cost  &  relief ?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called for the evidence from complainant as well as OP.    The complainant produced document which is marked as Exts.A1 &A2.  Ext.A1 is the order form / Quotation issued  by 1^st OP dtd.28/1/2016 and Ext.A2 is the user manual and warranty card issued by 2^nd OP. The complainant adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as PW1.  1^st OP adduced evidence through proof affidavit and examined as DW1.OP was not cross examined by complainant.  No document produced from the side of OPs.  Complainant and 2^nd OP filed argument notes.

   Let us have a clear glance into the documents and evidence filed before the commission to answer the issues.

Issue No.1

    In the light of available evidence there is no dispute with regard to purchase and installation of solar panel.  The dispute arise with regard to the output of voltage.  The complainant made an averment that  at the time of installation the 1^st OP promised  an output of 4 units of electricity per day but complainant suffered loss of money due to the lack of 4 units of watts per day as promised by 1^st OP.  To settle this dispute, the commission looked into the proof affidavit of both parties and cross examination of complainant. There is no direct evidence produced by complainant to prove that the assurance of 4 units of electricity per day by 1^st OP. The complainant made an averment that the assurance of 4 units electricity is made through an advertisement. In addition, the complainant admitted that he was using his old inverter and battery at the time of installation of solar panel and thereafter for 7 months, complainant again admits that still the solar panel is running and there is no defect with regard to the functioning of solar panel.  Moreover complainant admits that he has initially connected solar panel with old inverter and charger and admits that OP provided a new inverter and battery.  The OP contended that he clearly revealed about the output of solar panel depends on the temperature it receives and installed 2 solar panel of 250 watts each.  The complainant never took any expert commission to prove the defect of  not getting 4 units of electricity as promised by 1^st OP. Furthermore, there is no evidence produced by complainant to show that he paid Rs.16100/- as electricity bill due to the deficiency of solar panel. In addition to, during the cross examination of complainant, he deposed specifically to the question put forward by 2^nd OP that “OP.2 \n§Ä¡v bmsXmcp \jvS]cnlmchpw Xcm³ _m[yXbnÃsb¶p ]dªmÂ? icnbmWv  The 2^ndOP is the manufacturer herein and complainant has no claim against him.  From this the commission presumes that the solar panel is still in working condition and complainant not sustained any loss due to the installation of solar panel. Hence there is no deficiency in service proved as prayed by complainant in the complaint and issue No.1 is answered against the complainant.

Issue No.2:

     The complainant is not entitled to get any compensation and cost since there is no deficiency in service from the part of OPs. Issue No.2 is answered against the complainant.

   In the result complaint is dismissed without cost.

Exts:

A1- Order form and quotation

B1- User manual and warranty card

PW1-Muhammed Rashid .K- complainant

DW1-Nasar- 1^st OP

  Sd/                                                        Sd/                                                              Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew.                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR