Haryana

Panchkula

CC/128/2019

SMT.SUMAN AIRON. - Complainant(s)

Versus

7 BILLOIN SOLAR ENERGIES. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON

11 Dec 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	128 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	01.03.2019
Date of Decision	:	11.12.2019

                                                                           

 

Smt. Suman Airon, House No.160, Sector-25, Panchkula,  Haryana-134116.

 

                                                                             ….Complainant

Versus

7 Billion Solar Energies, SCF 30, 2^nd Floor, Swaraj Enclave, Sector-127, Greater Mohali.

                                                             ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:              Mr.Satpal, President.

                        Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                        Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person.   

OP already ex parte vide order dated 15.04.2019.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The complainant has filed this complaint against the Ops with the averments that the opposite party approached the complainant on 26.09.2018 with a proposal, via email, for designing, Engineering, Supply, Installation & Commissioning of 4KWp On-Grid Rooftop Solar PV Plant’at her residence in Panchkula. The cost was quoted as Rs.2,30,200/-, inclusinve of (a) Turnkey EPC for the said plant, (b) Statutory approvals and clearances and (c) Bi Directional Meter. The terms of payment were 10% at the time of confirmation of order, 80% advance with the purchase order and 10% after installation. The timeline for the commissioning of the project was mentioned as 3-4 weeks from the date of receiving the order confirmation and advance. The order for the solar plant was placed by paying Rs.23,000/- vide cheque No.841468, dated 27.09.2018 (encashed). The project was however delayed. Some material was delievered and a further payment of Rs. One lakh was made vide cheque No. 841469 dated 01.11.2018 (encashed). Later, the complainant was given the impression by the OP that the installation of the solar plant has been done and it has started supplying power to his house. The complainant further paid  Rs.80,000/- vide cheque No. 685286 on 26.11.2018 (encashed) making a total payment of Rs. 203000. But later the complainant had found that the OP had misguided him and the plant is not functional today. The opposite party was to submit an application to Uttar Haryana Bijali Vitaran Nigam (UHBVN) for the installation of bidirectional meter. But the OP did nothing and kept telling lies and did not reply even to the complainant’s messages. Thereafter, the complainant himself visited the office of UHBVN on 25.02.2018 and he was shocked to find that no application has been submitted for meter. The complainant requested UHBVN officer to allow him to submit the application then they told him that it has to be submitted by the solar panel supplier as it is he who knows the relevant specifications of the plant. The OP party has stopped all action and his staff also neither pick the phone nor reply to the complainant’s messages. The receipt of the subsidy is accordingly getting delayed. The complainant and his husband are senior citizens living all alone and the complete absence of response and action is causing great mental agony and harassment to them. Hence, this complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP through registered post on 12.03.2019 (vide registered post No. CH057696875IN), which was not received back either served or unserved despite the expiry of 30 days from the issuance of notice to OP; hence it was deemed to be served and thus, due to non appearance of OP, he was proceeded ex-parte by this Forum vide order dated 15.04.2019.

3.             To prove the ex-parte claim, the complainant has tendered the evidence by way of affidavit Annexure C-A alongwith documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 and closed the evidence.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and perused the record carefully and minutely.

5.             It is evident that the op submitted the proposal dated 26.09.2017 (Annexure C-1 colly) to the complainant for installation of ‘4KWp On-Grid Rooftop solar PV Plant’ at her residence. As per said proposal the scope of work included designing, engineering, supply, installation and commissioning of the Solar Power Project. The cost of the project was quoted as Rs.2,30,200/- but the final bill was settled for Rs.2,25,750/- as per invoice (Annexure C-3). Further, the schedule of payment as per the said financial annexed with proposal (Annexure C-1 colly) were as 10% advance, 80% advance with projects order and 10% after the installation of the solar power projects. The period for engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning of the project was committed as 3-4 week from the date of receiving the order confirmation and advance. As per the photocopy of the passbook pertaining to the account of the complainant, following payments have been found to have been made by the complainant in respect of the installation of the project in question.

Date	Amount	Stage
28.09.2018	23,000/-	At the time of placing the order being 10% advance.
03.11.2018	1,00,000/-	At the start of the work
26.11.2018	80,000/-	Installation of the solar plant
Total Rs. 2,03,000/-

 

6.             From above, it is evident that the complainant had made payment of 90% of the quoted amount till 26.11.2018. The balance 10% was to be paid at the time of commissioning of the system.

                The first grievance of the complainant against the OP is that he failed to adhere to the time schedule with regard to the installment and commissioning of the project in question. In this regard the complainant contended that despite a clear stipulation with regard to the installation and commissioning of the project within 3-4 week from the date of placement of the order, the OP did not adhere to the time schedule as promised by him vide proposal (Annexure C-1). It is contended that the OP swung into action only on 01.11.2018 by sending the material at site whereas the project should have been installed and commissioned in every respect till 25.10.2018.

7.             Another grievance of the complainant is that the OP did not behave in a responsible manner while rendering services pertaining to the installation and commissioning of the project. It is contended that as per financials annexed with proposal (Annexure C-1 colly), the OP was bound to provide the Bi directional meter in order to get the system in question commissioned but the OP neither applied to UHBVN for obtaining and installation of the Bidirectional meter nor informed the complainant in this regard. It is contended that the complainant made serious efforts to contact the OP through various whats app messages but the OP sometimes made no response and at the other times gave the evasive reply. On 24.12.2018 the OP mis stated the fact that the meter is still in testing. It is contended that project in question was commissioned after delay of more than five months causing a loss of Rs.13,584/- to the complainant. The complainant has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by issuing the necessary directions to OP.       

8.             The OP did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against him. The non-appearance of the OP despite notice shows that he has nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

9.             The complainant has no grievances with regard to the price as well as quality of the project. Her grievances relate to the delayed installation of the project as well as non co-operative and callous attitude of the OP. We have perused the proposal dated 26.09.2017 Annexure C-1 (colly) which clearly shows that time was the essence of the contact. The relevant clause of the proposal is reproduced as under:-

“The timeline for engineering, procurement, construction and project commissioning shall be 3-4 week from the date of receiving order confirmation and advance”.

10.            Undoubtedly, the order was placed with the OP by making the payment of Rs.23,000/- vide cheque dated 27.09.2018 as is evident from the entry reflecting in the passbook. Thus, the project was liable to be commissioned till 25.10.2018 but the OP has started to send the necessary material at site only on 01.11.2018 as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, we agree with the contention of the complainant that the OP did not adhere to the time schedule as promised by the OP vide proposal annexed with Annexure C-1(colly). Further as per financials annexed with the Annexure C-1 colly the OP was bound to make available the bidirectional meter at site in order to get the project operational. In this regard, the OP neither took any action at his own level nor informed the complainant in this regard.

 11.           For the sake of convenience and clarification the said financials appended with Annexure C-1 colly is reproduced as under;

Financials

Sr.No.	Description	Cost to Customer(INR)
1.	Supply, Installation & Commissioning for 4 kWp On-grid Solar PV System (Equipment’s as per MNRE)	230,200 Rs
	10% Advance 80%Advance with Purchase Order 10 % after System Install

 

The above Project cost is inclusive of

Turnkey EPC, for the said plant

Statutory approvals and clearances

Bi Directional Meter

Company is committed the generation of minimum 4 untis per day per    Kwh for 365 days completely.

12.            The complainant had conversation with the OP through whats app messages between 01.12.2018 to 04.02.2019 (Annexure C-2). We have perused the response given by the OP as revealed from whats app messages as contained in Annexure C-2 which may be summarized as under:-

Date	Response of OP
01.12.2018	Evasive reply
03.12.2018	No response
05.12.2018	No response
07.12.2018	Evasive reply
09.12.2018	Evasive reply
10.12.2018	Evasive reply
15.12.2018	Evasive reply
24.12.2018	The meter is still in testing
27.12.2018	Evasive reply
29.12.2018	Evasive reply
12.01.2019	Evasive reply
16.01.2019	Evasive reply
01.02.2019	Evasive reply
04.02.2019	Evasive reply

 

13.            It is pertinent to mention here that on 24.12.2018 the OP mis stated that the meter is still in testing whereas, in fact, no action was taken by the complainant till the receipt of notice from this Forum qua this complaint. Even the message of the complainant to the OP on 01.02.2019 that he would approach to the Consumer Forum failed to evoke any positive response from the OP.

14.            We have found that the OP took the necessary action with regard to the installation of bidirectional meter at site by contacting the UHBVN authorities only after receipt of notice from this Forum in the present complaint and ultimately the solar plant unit was finally commissioned on 09.04.2019 after a delay of more than five months. Further, the OP during his conversation with the complainant even did not inform about the reasons and facts due to which he was prevented to complete the task in time. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP has neither responded to the notices nor has he opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OP had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we conclude that there has been lapse and deficiency on the part of the OP while rendering the services to the complainant; hence the complainant is entitled to relief.

15.            With regard to relief, it may be mentioned here that the Hon’ble National Commission in the case titled as Amarpreet Singh Arora Vs.  M/s Parsvnath Developers Ltd. reported in 2019(2) CLT 163 (NC) has discussed the principle of grant of compensation as under:-

                “Restitutio in intergrum-Indisputably, grant of compensation is based on the Principle of restitutio in integrum- the said principle provides that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong- an application of this principle is that the aggrieved person should get the sum of money, which would put him in the same position if he had not sustained the wrong- it must necessarily result in compensating the aggrieved person for the financials loss suffered due to the event, the pain and suffering undergone and the liability that he /she would have to incur due to the loss and harassment caused by the event-Appeal allowed.”

16.            (a).   In the present case, solar power plant has already been installed and commissioned by the OP by making available the bidirectional meter at site.

                (b).   With regard to the release of the subsidy, the complainant herself has admitted that she has received the subsidy of Rs.57,024/- as per additional submissions filed on 27.11.2019 through her counsel. With regard to her prayer that she is entitled to a subsidy amounting to Rs.72,000/-, we find no documentary evidence on record substantiating the fact that the OP had ever promised the complainant to her entitlement to the subsidy amounting to Rs.72,000/-; hence the demand of the complainant claiming the balance amount of subsidy  is rejected.    

                (c ).  With regard to the loss on account of delayed commissioning of the project, it may be mentioned here that the OP has made the commitments vide financials regarding the generation of minimum 4 units per day per kwh for 365 days. It means the installed solar system being 4 Kwh in question is/was capable of generating 16 units per day and thus the units generated in a month comes to 480 units. When we compute the total units for five months, the total loss of units comes as 2400 units. As per bill dated January, 2019 and March 2019 the average cost per unit is 5.66 unit and thus the total loss comes to works out as Rs.13,584/-.

17.            Apart from above, it may be mentioned here that  the OP by his reckless and carelessness  act and conduct, the complainant has to    move from  pillor  to post  for making  the solar  project  operational  at site, therefore,  it would  be justifiable  if we grant  a compensation  of Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and litigations expenses.

18.            As a sequel to the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OPs:-

1. To refund an amount of Rs.13,584/- to the complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the filing of complaint till realization.

 

2. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/ to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment.

 

3. To pay an amount of Rs.2,100/- as litigation charges.

 

19.            The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Forum for initiation of proceedings under Sections 25 and 27 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced on: 11.12.2019

 

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini         Satpal          

        Member                           Member                               President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

 

                                        Satpal,                              

President