IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 80/2018 (filed on 26-04-2018)
Petitioner : P.T. Ramachandran,
S/o. Ponnappan,
Sreelakshmi House, 1/104,
Thalayolaparampu P.O.
Pin – 686605.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Agency for Non Conventional
Energy and Rural Technology
(ANERT)
TC No.14/649, Opp. Police Ground
Thycaud P.O.
Thiruvananthapuram – 695014
Rep. by its Director
(Adv. K. Kuruvilla John)
2) Su-kam Power Systems Ltd.
Corporate Office, Plot No.54
Udyog Vihar, Phase VI, Sector 7 Rep. by its Managing Director
3) Su-kam Power Systems Ltd.
Door No.29/866, JR 60,
Karukaparambil Hosue,
Janatha Road, Vyttila,
Ernakulam – 682019
Rep. by its Manager.
4) Yes-tech Systems,
West gate, Opp. South Indian
Bank, Vaikom,
Rep. by its Manager.
O R D E R
Smt. Bindhu R, Member
Complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer protection act, 1986.
The case of the complainant is that he had registered with the 1st opposite party on payment of a fee of Rs.500/- on 22.03.2013 with reg.no SRP/2012/007649 for purchasing a 1000 Watts solar power plant in subsidized rate. As per the list provided with the registration letter, complainant paid Rs.94117/- on 08/05/2013 to the second opposite party and booked the said solar power plant. On 07/06/13 the second opposite party issued an invoice for Rs.1, 86,376/- including the subsidy, by the first opposite party. On 18-06-2013, the power plant was installed with an old battery in the system. Though it was mandatory to conduct performance test, they did not do that. As per the work order format 2 and the agreement in format 3, the system should deliver 1000watts power per hour i.e.7200 watt power in a day. Warranty was given to the full system for five years and solar panel for 25 years. The agency would conduct periodic service visits at
least once in six months during the warranty period and ensure good working of the system. As per the agreement, complaints should be attended within 48 hours but nobody responded to the complaints made by the complainant regarding the poor working of the system. On 22/05/2015 one service personnel came and gave a copy of a field service report as pending and he went back with an assurance to come on the next day with proper tools. But after that nobody came to attend the complaint. As the solar system was not working, the very purpose of the same was defeated causing huge loss to the complainant both financially and mentally. So the complaint is filed for getting Rs.94,117/- back along with interest and compensation.
Opposite parties were served with the notice and all opposite parties appeared and filed version.
The 1st opposite party filed version through its District Engineer one Santhosh T Thomas, contending that it is the nodal agency of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE) of Govt. Of India and the Nodal agency of the Govt. Of Kerala for the implementation of New and Renewable energy programmes in Kerala. Its role is only as a facilitator in the installation of solar power plants with Central Financial Assistance and state subsidy it any. The role of the 1st opposite party is limited to this and further processes are made between the consumer and the installing agency. The cost of installation for the power plant is collected by the installed agency and it is the responsibility to provide operation and maintenance support to the complainant. So the complainant is not a customer of the 1st opposite party. The 1st opposite party ANERT implement schemes for rooftop plants as per government of India guidelines. The CFA and state subsidy if any, received is distributed upfront to the beneficiaries as subsidy. It invites expression of interest from the approved channel partners of MNRE for the implementation of the programme and had published the list of empanelled agencies in its website. At the time of registration each beneficiary is intimated about the actions to be taken further to proceed in the scheme. All the details regarding this are published in the website including the list of empanelled agencies and the quoted rates. The beneficiary is at liberty to select the agency of his choice, shall invite them for a pre installation survey and if the site is feasible, he/she shall issue a work order and enter into an agreement with the selected agency. They are also required to submit the pre installation survey report, copy of work order and agreement executed between himself and the agency to the concerned district office of ANERT.
After the installation process, the commissioning report along with an undertaking of the beneficiary to release the subsidy to the installed agency should also be submitted to the district office. Thereafter the 1st opposite party would conduct an inspection for verification of the technical compliance and the beneficiary price after deduction of the subsidy amount would be done. The agreement is made by the consumer with the agency and the payment is directly to the agency. Based on the authorization of the beneficiary, the 1st opposite party would release the subsidy amount to the agency on a satisfactory completion and performance of the system. Based on the report from the beneficiary regarding the satisfactory working of the system, technical compliance and the recommendation for release of subsidy based on the report from the beneficiary regarding the satisfactory working of the system, technical compliance and the recommendation for release of subsidy from District Engineer, the subsidy is released. So it is made clear that the 1st opposite party is only a facilitator of the central finance assistance and state subsidy if any. Hence the case is to be settled between the other opposite parties and the complainant.
The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties in their version contended that in the ordinary course every complaint has to be made on their customer care number and each time a complaint is lodged, the system of the answering opposite parties generates a complaint number which is the proof of complaint being made to the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The last complaint was by the complainant in the year 2015 and after getting the complaint, the service engineer visited at the site and found that the gravity of battery was low and advised the complainant to boost charge the same. After receiving the present complaint, the service engineer visited at the site on 2-6-2018 and found that control card was not working and replaced it. Again on 12- 06-18 the engineer again visited the site and found two batteries defective and replaced it. Thereafter the system started working. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are ready to rectify the system if there is any manufacturing defect. But the complainant has not produced any document to prove the same. There was no manufacturing defect or any other defect in the inverter in question. The impugned product does not come with a life guarantee but only a standard warranty for the limited period subject to the warranty conditions. No expert report has been sought or produced by the complainant to prove the defect of the system. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The 4th opposite party in his version stated that the 4th opposite party has only installed the 1 KWA solar of Sukam solar power systems Limited. All the payments were made to Sukam and the 4th opposite party has only fitted the same. It is the company who provides guaranty and service not the 4th opposite party. So the complaint against the 4th opposite party is to be dismissed.
The complainant filed proof affidavit along with Exhibits A1 to A13.Opposite party1 also filed proof affidavit without any documentary evidence. Other opposite parties did not file oral or documentary evidence.
We have given a detailed perusal of the pleadings and evidence on record. The points to be decided are whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties and if so what are the reliefs for which the complainant is entitled to?
1. The complainant alleges that he had purchased a solar inverter to his house from the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties who were in the published list of the 1st opposite party, a facilitator for the purchase and installation of solar inverters by helping the consumers to get the Government subsidy on those solar systems but the system was defective and none of the opposite parties took steps to redress his grievance.
2. The 1st opposite party has contended that they were only a facilitator to help the people who intend to buy solar systems by providing the manufacturer’s information and subsidy from the Government. They have no further liability as the consumers select the companies by themselves and the contract is entered between the consumer and the company. The 1st opposite party does not receive any payment from the consumers and so the complainant has no consumer relationship with the 1st opposite party.
3. The complainant has produced Exhibit A1 which is the acknowledgement slip issued by the 1st opposite party after receivingRs.500/- vide DD, as per DD no 097076 dated 22/03/13 of Central Bank, Mevelloor. So the 1st opposite party cannot abstain from their liability as a service provider to its consumer/complainant.
Though not marked from both sides, Consumer protection Act being a social welfare legislation, we are inclined to consider the document produced by the 1st opposite party dated 25.03.2013 no 4351/ANERT/SRTP/2012-13 sent by the director of 1st opposite party to the consumer in which the consumer is asked to contact the companies enlisted in their website and install the power plant as per the directions given in the website. Further the complainant is asked to install the plant within the stipulated time limit also. Along with the said letter a list of companies also is attached in which the 2nd opposite party company is listed as the 6th number. In the said letter the 1st opposite party insists that the consumer should buy the system only from the company empanelled with them in order to get the subsidy given by the Government. So the 1st opposite party monopolized the installation of the solar power plants with government subsidy. The contention of the 1st t opposite party that they were only the facilitator and the complainant requested them to suggest one company is not sustainable.
4. As per Exhibit A2,, the complainant had paid Rs.94,117/-to the Opposite party 3 which is the branch of 2nd opposite party. Exhibit A6 is the agreement made between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party in which the whole system is given a warranty for 5 years and the solar module provided is assured a performance warranty of 90% of the rated output at the end of 10 years and 80% at the end of 25 years.
5. So from the ExhibitA6, it is clear that the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are bound to rectify all the defects occurring to the solar system supplied by them. In the version they admitted that the complainant registered a complaint in 2015 and the service engineer visited and rectified the defect. But no documents have been produced in this regard. The complainant alleges that upon that complaint nobody
turned up and even after repeated requests, no service was provided by the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties has stated that they visited the complainant’s house and checked the system and advised to charge the battery but no evidence has been produced before us to prove that they had attended the complaint. After the filing of the complaint before the Commission only the opposite parties visited the complainant and did some repair to the system.
6. So from all the above facts and evidence we infer that the complainant purchased a solar inverter system for his domestic use but due to some defects the purpose of the system was failed. Though the complainant alleged manufacturing defect, there is no expert evidence before us. But as there is no contrary evidence to prove that the system was not defective and was serviced as assured, we infer that the system was frequently defective and did not serve the purpose of offered quantity of electricity.
7. Though there is no manufacturing defect proven, we find that the solar power plant showed defect frequently. A product if shows defects several times, that too in warranty period, can be considered as defective product and shall be replaced by the manufacturer.
8. The complainant who wished to use the energy sources other than the conventional energy, hoping to get support from the government was put to countless hardships after spending money. The 1st opposite party had received Rs.500/- for registration and only because of this registration, the complainant contacted the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties due to the mandate given by the 1st opposite party to choose a company from the list provided by them for availing the subsidy. The 1st opposite party has provided the list of the empanalled companies with the quoted rates. So the 1st opposite party has a bounden duty to ensure that the enlisted companies would provide after sale service to the consumers promptly. Being the facilitator, the 1st opposite party has a responsibility to get proper service to the consumer at least for the warranty period. There no allegation against the 4th opposite party and no relief is sought for against him.
9. Thus we find that the solar power system purchased by the complainant from the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties with the advice of the 1st party was defective and no proper service as assured was given by the opposite parties 1 to 3 which is found to be deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties. As the system was already in warranty as per Exhibit A6(The whole system. should be warranted for 5 years and the Solar moducle provided should have a performance warranty of 90% of the rated output at the end of 10 years and 80% at the end of 25 years. The opposite parties are bound to do the periodic service and make the system defect free for the free and full enjoyment of the consumer.
Hence we allow the complaint and the following order is passed:
1. The opposite party 2 and 3 are directed to repair the system defect free to the complainant failing which the opposite parties shall return the amount of Rs.94,117/- to the complainant along with an interest @9% p.a. from the date of registration of the complaint i.e. 22.05.2015 till the date of realisation.
2. The 1st , 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.20,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant as compensation.
The order shall be complied within 30 days failing which the compensation amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of receipt of the order.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of October, 2022
Smt. Bindhu R, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of acknowledgement slip issued by opposite party
A2 – Copy of Cheque given 2nd opposite party for Rs.94,117/-
A3 – Copy of retail invoice dtd. 07-06-13 issued by 3rd opposite party
A4 – Copy of Format – 1 (site inspection report)
A5- Copy of Format – 2 (Fork order)
A6 –Copy of Format 3 (Agreement between Agency and Beneficiary)
A7- Copy of Format 4 (Commission report)
A8 –Copy of Format 5 (Undertaking by beneficiary)
A9 – Copy of Format 6 (Authorised to receive subsidy)
A10- Copy of letter dtd.24-11-15 by petitioner to 2nd opposite party
A11- Copy of field service report issued by Su-kam power systems Ltd.
A12- Copy of letter given by petitioner to the Director of ANERT Tvm.
A13series- Copy of acknowledgement card from Sukam Power systems (2 nos.)
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
Nil
By Order
SD/-
Assistant Registrar
