THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.

C.C. 541/2014

Dated this the 11^th day of May, 2016

(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB.                       :  President)

                                                                   Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A                             : Member

                                                                  Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB                   : Member

ORDER

Present: Joseph Mathew, Member:

            This petition is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.1986.

            The petitioner’s case is that he had installed 1 KWP Roof Top Solar Power Plant which was implemented by ANERT (Opposite party No.3) through the 1^st opposite party (Moserbaer Solar Ltd.) and their Kerala representative Pattasseril Business Associates LLP (opposite party No. 2). The amount paid by him to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 was Rs.99,157/-. On 26/06/2013, the 2^nd opposite party installed the system and got the commissioning report signed by him. The petitioner alleged that the 2^nd opposite party had forged the commissioning report by putting 10/06/2013 as the date of  commissioning and also wrongly entered the invoice number as 3013901033 and the date as 06/06/2013 which are not correct. They did so only to comply the rules of ANERT that the solar plant has to be installed within 45 days after the work order is received by the company.

            It is stated by the petitioner that the batteries connected with the solar panel was not buffer charged before installation. Moreover they connected KSEB to the inverter as against the agreement between the company and ANERT. The battery was not storing current and was losing charge without using the inverter. When complained, the workers of the 2^nd opposite party took the batteries to their workshop on 01/09/2013 and returned the same only on 13/09/2013 after buffer charging. But they left the premise without connecting the batteries and they didn’t contact him till 24/09/2013. The petitioner stated that as per the agreement the company has to attend the service calls within 48 hours and rectify the problems within 4 days. But Moserbaer technicians neither attend the service calls within 48 hours nor rectified the problems within 4 days. Even though he had made complaint several times to ANERT office Kozhikode and their office at Thiruvananthapuram and they promised to direct the company to attend the complaint and to rectify the same, nothing happened. Thereafter on 13/02/2014 he had sent a letter to ANERT, Thiruvananthapuram, requesting to interfere in the matter and tell Moserbear the 2^nd opposite party to take back the faulty solar plant and to refund the amount paid, but there was no reply from them.

            According to the petitioner there was no use for him with the solar plant and due to defects with the system, it didn’t serve its purpose at all. He lost 395 working days of the solar plant due to the negligence of technicians, inefficiency of the solar plant and equipments and due to the delay caused by the 2^nd opposite party. The 2^nd opposite party also have cheated him by connecting the solar plant directly to KSEB grid and by forging the documents signed by him. The said act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice and also deficiency in service on their side and that caused untold sufferings, mental agony and also heavy financial loss to him. Hence this petition is filed to direct the 1^st opposite party Moserbaer to take back the defective solar plant and to direct the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to refund the paid amount of Rs.99,157/- along with interest at 12%  per annum and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the difficulties suffered and Rs.15,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

            The 1^st opposite party filed version with the following contentions. It is submitted that they had supplied the required equipment and systems to 2^nd opposite party, their authorized representative for the installation of solar plant at the premises of the petitioner in a very good working condition. The 2^nd opposite party completed the work and the petitioner had signed the completion report after verifying and satisfying the work done by the 2^nd opposite party. It is stated that the 2^nd opposite party had informed the petitioner about the working of the system and the precautions to be taken while operating the system and in the event of any misuse, damage will be caused to the system and the battery. After getting the completion report signed by the petitioner the 2^nd opposite party submitted the same to them. Due to the act of the petitioner the amount due to them from the Government is stopped and till date they have not received the said amount from the concerned department. If the plant is not working, that is not any fault on their side and they are not liable to compensate the petitioner in any manner. The failure of the battery if any is due to the misuse of the petitioner as against the instructions given by the 2^nd opposite party. This petition was filed with some ulterior motive. All other allegations are denied by the 1^st opposite party as false and baseless. Hence prayed to dismiss the petition with their cost.

            The other opposite parties didn’t file any version or adduced any evidence on their side and hence they set ex-parte.

            The petitioner filed affidavit and produced documents 11 in numbers to prove his case and those were marked as Ext. A1 to A11 as evidence on his side. Ext. A3 is the copy of receipt of Rs.30,000/- issued by the 2^nd opposite party and Ext. A4 is the receipt for Rs.69,157/- issued by the 1^st opposite party. Ext. A9 is the copy of Retail invoice issued by Moserbaer Solar Ltd. for the balance amount of Rs.99,157/-. The other Ext.s are copy of acknowledgment slip from the Director, ANERT, Letter from ANERT to the petitioner, commissioning report etc.etc.

            Petitioner’s allegation is that, the technicians of the 2^nd opposite party connected the batteries to the solar system without buffer charging and thereby the battery became defective and the whole system became faulty. Due the repeated fault with the battery, the solar system didn’t function properly and the sole purpose of its installation became worthless. Even after repeated requests the opposite parties didn’t care to attend the defects or to cure the same timely. This caused heavy financial loss and other untold sufferings to him. It is submitted by him that after deducting the subsidies he had paid a total amount of Rs.99,157/- to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. So they are liable to compensate him.

            Though the 1^st opposite party contended that the fault with the battery or system if any is due to the misuse of the system by the petitioner as against the instructions given by the 2^nd opposite party in using the system, no evidence was adduced by them to prove that the petitioner had misused the system in any manner. So the said contention of the 1^st opposite party will not sustain. The other opposite parties didn’t file any version denying the allegations of the petitioner or produced any documentary evidence to rebut the allegations raised by the petitioner. So the allegations of the petitioner stand unchallenged. In the absence of evidence to disprove the allegations of the petitioner, relying on the evidence adduced by the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the petitioner had proved his case, that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As the supplier of the equipments, the 1^st opposite party is having a duty to see that the system installed by the 2^nd opposite party, their representative, is functioning properly and served its purpose fully. But they have not seen to take due care in this regard. Hence they are equally faulty and also liable to compensate the petitioner for their negligent attitude. As it is found that there is deficiency in service on the side of both the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, the following order is passed.

            The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are jointly and severally ordered to pay back paid amount of Rs.99,157/- (Rupees ninety nine thousand one hundred fifty seven only) to the petitioner with 12% interest per annum from 30/04/2013 (the date the petitioner had paid the total amount) onwards till payment and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as cost of these proceedings. The 1^st opposite party can take back the solar plant installed at the premises of the petitioner after payment of the ordered amount. As interest is ordered, no order as to compensation. This order will be complied with, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dated this the 11^th day of May 2016.

Date of filing: 23/10/2014

SD/-MEMBER                              SD/-  PRESIDENT                      SD/- MEMBER

APPENDIX

Documents exhibited for the complainant:

A1. Copy of acknowledge slip issued by the opposite party No. 3

A2. Copy of letter received from the opposite party No.3

A3. Copy of receipt issued by the opposite party No. 2

A4. Copy of receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party

A5. Copy of Commissioning Report

A6. Copy of Commissioning Report

A7. Copy of authorization issued by 1^st opposite party

A8. Copy of undertaking

A9. Copy of retail invoice issued by 1^st opposite party

A10. Copy of packing list issued by 1^st opposite party

A11. Copy of Servicing/installation report

Documents exhibited for the opposite party:

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant:

None

Witness examined for the opposite party:

 None                                                                                                                      

Sd/-President

//True copy//

(Forwarded/By Order)

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT