IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE    28^th  DAY OF JANUARY 2020

Present: -    Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

                                            Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member              

CC.No.289/2018

Sri.K.Sureshkumar,

S/o Kochuvelumban(Late),

Suresh Bhavanam

(Mundakatharayil),

Clappana P.O.,

Vallikkavu, Karunagappally,

Kollam District 690 525.                                                                       :        Complainant

V/S

1. The Director,

A           ANERT,

            Thiruvananthapuram 695033.

2. M/s. Millennium Synergy Pvt.Ltd.,

         23, 1^st Main Road,

          Vijayasengom

         Lay out,

       Behind old shanty Theatre,

      Basavanagudi, Bangalore, 560004.

                                                                                                               :      Opposite parties

3. M/s Solartech,

       Room No.149, ARS shopping Complex,

       Athani, Thrissur 680 581.

4. V.S.Padmakumar,

       Project Officer,

       ANERT

FAIR ORDER

Smt.Sandhya Rani, B.SC, LLB, Member

This is a case based on a consumer complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

          The averments in the complaint in short are as follows.

          Complainant is a customer of opposite parties 1 to 4 during the period 2012-13, where 1^st opposite party ANERT is a nodal agency of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) Govt.of India and 2^nd opposite party Millennium Synergy is an empanelled agency of 1^st opposite party ANERT and 3^rd opposite party Vega Solar system is a dealer of 2^nd opposite party and 4^th opposite party V.S.Padmakumar is project officer cum engineer of 1^st opposite party.

          By attracting press advertisement made by 1^st opposite party regarding installation of 10,000 roof top solar 1 kw power plant with subsidy, the complainant here has sent an application to 1^st opposite party by paying registration fee Rs.500/- vide DD No.50370 dated 25.03.2013 and the same was registered as per Reg.No.SRP/12/07802 on 30.03.2013.  During that period the building construction of the complainant was in progress and before starting electrification he approached 1^st opposite party ANERT with intend to get guidance for installation of Solar Power Plant in his house.  Accordingly the  1^st opposite party send 4^th opposite party Sri.Padmakumar, their project officer cum Engineer in the site and as per his direction the complainant constructed a cabin in one corner of theMain kitchen (1^st kitchen) for keeping battery of Solar Power Plant safely.  Thereafter the complainant has opted 2^nd opposite party, Millennium Synergy Pvt.Ltd for installation and 25 years servicing of Solar Power Plant from the empanelled agencies of 1^st opposite party.  By believing the assurance of 1^st opposite party the complainant interested the work order to 2^nd opposite party on 23.10.2013.  Thereafter the 2^nd opposite party sent their officials to the complainant’s house and they have inspected the entire wiring of the house and the proposed place where the battery is to be installed.  As per the invoice No.MSPL/KER/14-15/410 dated 15.06.2014 issued by 2^nd opposite party Millennium Synergy Pvt.Ltd., the complainant had to remit Rs.85,279/- in favour of 3^rd opposite party for installation of the solar power plant after deducting MNRE & stage subsidy Rs.92,262 from the total cost Rs.1,77,541, including KVAT @ 1 % and  he has remitted the same in two installments as Rs.50,000/- and Rs.35,279/- on 24.10.2013 and on 15.07.2014 respectively.  Thereafter when the housing construction of the complainant was completed on 15.07.2014 he availed electricity from the solar plant  installed by 2^nd opposite party and used electricity since 20.08.2016 without any interruption.  Even after repeated requests from complainant, opposite party 1 and 2 failed to repair the panel and kept the plant idle for more than two months and the same was repaired only on 25.10.2016. Like wise the supply of electricity was stopped on 15.03.2017 , 25.05.2017 and 30.12.2017.  In short the functioning of solar plant was not satisfactory after two years of installation.  After repeated requests from the part of complainant certain officials of 2^nd opposite party inspected the solar power plant and suggested that the place of installation of the battery was defective so for the proper functioning of the plant the battery has to be changed into some other convenient place then only servicing of the plant has to be made effectively.  Again the complainant preferred a complaint before the District Collector, Kollam on 16.06.2018 but no remedy was received from there.

          The complainant had dreamt of reducing his cost of living  index by way of using solar energy directly with the aid of a government agency like ANERT,  but  he couldn’t avail electric supply uninterruptedly not more than 2 years from its installation though there exists 25 years servicing and warranty for the solar plant and 5 years warranty for its battery.  In the circumstance it is clear that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties 1 to 4.  Hence the complaint.

          Opposite parties 1 to 3 resisted the averments in the complaint by filing separate versions.  The 1^st opposite party ANERT would contend in its version that the beneficiary has been given freedom to select any of the agencies for the implementation of the project at their premises based on their choice and after selecting an agency of their choice, the beneficiary shall invite them for a pre installation survey and if the site is feasible the beneficiary shall issue a work order and enter into an agreement with that selected agency , and  the agency selected by the beneficiary (complainant) is 2^nd opposite party Millennium Synergy Pvt.Ltd.  The timeline, installation, payment conditions warranty etc. are to be clearly listed in the agreement executed between the beneficiary and the agency so it is the responsibility of the empanelled agency who installed the solar system to rectify the complaints and maintain the warranty conditions.  The beneficiary and the agency had executed an agreement in this regard while issuing work order and as a state agency ANERT (1^st opposite party) is only a facilitator of the CFA and state subsidy if any.  So the complaint may be settled between the complainant and the agency installed the solar system, Millennium Synergy Pvt.Ltd.(2^nd opposite party). 

The 2^nd opposite party would contend that the solar plant worked smoothly for more than 1½ years of its installation and there was no problem in the system design and installation and commissioning. But after receiving complaint they had send a technician to the house of the complainant and advised him to shift the batteries from the present location (kitchen) to a new place because the kitchen slab was constructed over the battery area so it is very difficult to do the maintenance of the batteries.  To maintain the solar system in healthy condition periodic maintenance is necessary but here it is not possible due to the improper fixing of batteries under  kitchen slab.  And 2^nd opposite party had requested the complaint to take immediate step to change the place of batteries so as to put back, the  solar system in working condition with in the warranty period .

          3^rd opposite party would contend that the Vega Solar System has not involved in the installation and maintenance of the Solar Power Plant installed at complainant’s residence.  As a dealer of 2^nd opposite party when 3^rd opposite party has received instruction from there, Sri.Sureshkumar an engineer attached to 3^rd opposite party went the site and found that the batteries were installed in a wrong place which is under kitchen slab as such the area is too hot having no ventilation and he advised the complainant to relocate the batteries to a place where there is proper ventilation and accessibility to make the solar plant working.  More over 3^rd opposite party has no involvement in the installation and maintenance of this solar plant so they may be relieved from being a party in this case.

          In the light of above pleadings the points arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replaced the defective solar panel with a brand new one?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation as claimed?
4. Relief and costs?

     Though opposite parties 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed version, they have not participated in the trial.  Opposite parties No. 1 to 3 or any counsel having vakalath were not present before this Forum. When the case was taken up for trial, the 4^th opposite party has not even appeared in response to the notice. Hence  all the opposite parties were set exparte.

     Complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating the averments in the complaint and got marked Ext.A1 to A9 documents.

     Ext.A1 is acknowledgment slip dated 30.03.2019 Reg.SRP/12/02802 issued from ANERT, Thiruvananthapuram.  Ext.A2 is the work order. Ext.A3 is      pre–installation site inspection report.  Ext.A4 is the receipt issued by Vega Solar System for receiving the cheque for and on behalf of Millennium Synergy Pvt.Ltd., Ext.A5 is the Invoice issued by Solar Tax Teck, Kollam for Millennium Synergy Pvt.Ltd.  Ext.A6 complaint dated 30.12.2017 preferred before Millennium Synergy Pvt.Ltd.  Ext.A7 is the copy of commission certificate affixed on the wall of complainant’s house.  Ext.A8 is the warranty card of four batteries.  Ext.A9 is the Format of  warranty card.

Heard the complainant’s counsel and perused the records.

Point No.  1 to 3

For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these 3 points are considered together.  The specific case of the complainant is that by attracting press advertisement made by the 1^st opposite party the complainant sent an application for installation of roof top solar 1kw power plant with subsidy by paying Registration fee Rs.500/-   The above version the complainant stands corroborate by Ext.A1acknowledgment slip issued from Director, ANERT, Thiruvananthapuram.  The terms of payment installation was that complainant has to pay the amount after deducting the subsidy given by MNRE.  The complainant  was also amenable for the same. The application was registered as per Regn.No.SRP/12/07802 on 30.03.2013.  Accordingly, the 1^st opposite party sent 4^th opposite party Sri.Padmakumar, who is the project officer cum engineer in the site and as per his direction the complainant constructed a cabin in one corner of the main kitchen for keeping battery of solar power plant safely.  It is also clear from the available materials that the complainant has opted the 2^nd opposite party Millennium Synergy Pvt.Ltd from the empanelled agencies of  the 1^st opposite party.  By believing the assurance of 1^st opposite party, the complainant entrusted the work order to 2^nd opposite party on 23.10.2013.  Ext.A2 is the work order which would clearly indicate that cost of installation agreed was 1,77541/- and out of at Rs.50,000/- was paid and the balance Rs.35279/- has to be paid after installation.  The work order seen given on 23.10.2013.  It is also clear from the available materials that 2^nd opposite party went to the complainant’s residence and after inspection of the entire wiring system of the house proposed the place where the battery is to be installed.  Thereafter the complainant remitted Rs.85,279/- in favour of 3^rd opposite party for installation of the solar power plant after deducting subsidy of Rs.92,262/- out of total cost of Rs.1,77,541/-.  The complainant has remitted the above amount in 2 installments.  Ext.A3 is the pre installation site inspection report and Ext.A4 series are the 2 receipts evidencing the payment of the above amount Rs.50,000/- and Rs.35,279/- respectively in favour of Vega Solar System who is the 3^rd opposite party.  It is also clear from the available materials that the complainant obtained electricity from the solar plant installed from 15.07.2014 and he used the same till 20.08.2016 without any interruption.  But there are defects and even after repeated requests of the complainant, the opposite parties 1 and 2 failed to repair the panel and kept the plant idle for more than two months and the same was repaired only on 25.10.2016.  It is also brought out evidence that the supply of electricity was interrupted on several occasions and the functioning of solar plant was not satisfactory after 2 years of installation.  On the basis of repeated requests from the complainant the officials of the 2^nd opposite party inspected the defective solar power plant and suggested that the place of installation of the battery was not proper and for the proper functioning of the plant the battery has to be changed to some other convenient place then only servicing of the plant has to be made effectively.  Ext.A6 is a copy of the grievance petition filed by the complainant indicating the defect of the solar plant and also requesting to cure the defects at the earliest.  The complainant has also made complaint before the District Collector, Kollam on 16.06.2018 regarding the defect of the solar system but of no use.  Ext.A7 warranty card would indicate that the solar power plant is having 5 years warranty from the date of commissioning.  The date of commissioning is admittedly  15.07.2014.  It is clear from the available materials that within 3 years date of commissioning the solar power plant has became defective.  Ext.A8 is the warranty card in respect of the battery which would indicate that its battery is also having warranty for 5 years from the date of sale of the which is on 15.07.2014.  It is clear from the available materials that the solar power plant including as battery has defective within 3 years from the date of installation and commissioning and in spite of the repeated requests of the complainant the power plant and the battery was not replaced nor the functioning of the power plant has been rectified.  Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.    It is also brought out evidence that as the power plant has not become working the complainant has sustained mental agony apart from financial loss.  In the circumstances the complainant is entitled to get the Solar Power Plant repaired and made in a working condition, apart from compensation to the monitory loss and mental agony. The points answered accordingly.

Point No.4

In the result complaint stands allowed directing the opposite parties 1to 4 to  make the defective solar power plant of the complainant functioning by replacing the entire defective parts including batteries .

They are further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant. 

They are also directed to Rs.5000/-as cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Opposite parties No. 1 to 4 are direct to comply with the above directions within 45 days from the dare of receiving a copy of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to recover of the entire value of the power plant including the value of battery and expenses incurred by him for the installation the same at his residence along with the interest at the rate of 9 % per annum from the date of complainant till realization along with costs from opposite parties 1 to 4 jointly and severally and from their assets.

Dictated to the  Confidential Assistant Smt.Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Forum on this the   28^th day of  January  2020.

                                                                     E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM: Sd/-

S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                                              STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                                                  Forwarded/by Order

                                                                                                                                                                                  Senior Superintendent

INDEX

Documents marked for the complainant

Ext.A1:- Acknowledgment slip dated 30.03.2019

Ext.A2:- work order

Ext.A3:- Pre-installation site inspection report

Ext.A4:- Receipt issued by Vega Solar System

Ext.A5:- Invoice issued by Solar Tax Teck, Kollam

Ext.A6:- complaint dated 30.12.2017 before Millennium Synergy Pvt.Ltd.

Ext.A7:- Copy of commission certificate

Ext.A8:- Warranty card

Ext.A9:- Format of warranty card

Documents marked for the Opposite party : Nil