DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2023
Filed on: 14/06/2022
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
CC NO.297/2022
Between
COMPLAINANT
K.A. George, S/o. K.G. Abraham, Karrunilath House, Ernakulam Nort P.O., Pin 682018.
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1. Narendranath Veluri, CEO of ANERT, Vikas Bhavan P.O., Thiruvananthapuram, Pin 6950033
2. M/s. Green Roof solar (P) Ltd., H. No. 2/324, Jyothis Lane, Edappally, Near Tall Restaurant, Pin 682024.
FINAL ORDER
Sreevidhia T.N., Member:
1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complainant had made an agreement with the opposite party on 21/01/2022. The opposite party collected Rs.133,117/- on 07/03/2022 promising the work would be completed within a fortnight positively. For this purpose complainant had paid Rs.5,000/- as advance to the opposite party. The firm wanted to execute the construction of base structure for a huge amount which was not included in the agreement. The opposite party also dumped certain materials in the car shed of the complainant on 13/04/2022 and as a result of which complainant’s car cannot be parked.
The complainant alleges that the work was not executed by the opposite party as per the contract agreed upon. Hence the complainant completed that work with a private party at lesser amount. The complainant submits that he had committed a loss due to the non-compliance of the contract as the work would be completed within 15 days ie. on 22/03/2022 from the date of receipt of advance amount of Rs.5,000/-. The opposite party has not completed the work till date and hence the complainant approached this Commission seeking to get the following reliefs:
i. The rent of the car shed of the complainant from the date of dumping the materials as a result of which the complainant’s car cannot parked – Rs.5,000/month
ii. Interest of Rs.1,33,177/- at 12% as the money was levied from the complainant in advance instead of Rs.5,000/- as detailed in the agreement.
iii. An amount of Rs.5,000/- for the delay of two months in erection of Panel System as promised in the agreement
iv. The erection of work from opposite party partially completed as on 13/05/2022. Still now the opposite party have not completed the work by non-providing of Shine Phone App for which the complainant demanded Rs.3,000/-
2. Notice.
When the case was taken on file notices was sent to the opposite parties from this Commission on 03/08/2022. Upon notice 1st opposite party appeared and filed their version. Even though the notice sent to 2nd opposite party was served on 12/08/2022 they had not filed their version within the statutory period. Hence 2nd opposite party was set ex-parte on 28/09/2022.
3. Version of 1st opposite party
ANERT is the Nodal Agency of the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy (MNRE), Govt. of India, and the Nodal Agency of the Govt. of Kerala for the Implementation of New and Renewable Energy Programmes in the State of Kerala. The role of ANERT is to facilitate the beneficiaries of Kerala intending to install Solar Power Plants with Central Financial Assistance (CFA) and State Subsidy if any, available from time to time. ANERT’s role is limited to a facilitator only and further processes are bound by the agreement made between the complainant and the Empanelled Agency mentioned as opposite party No. 1 above.
The cost of installation for the Power Plant was collected by the Empanelled Agency selected by the complainant and it is the responsibility of the Empanelled Agency to provide installation, commissioning and maintenance support to the complainant. ANERT had never been interfered in the purchase or transaction procedure taken place between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party. ANERT has no role in the selection of the 2nd opposite party from the empanelled list and was the sole discretion of the complainant to select the empanelled agency for the installation of the solar power plant. ANERT is implementing this scheme for Roortop Power Plants as per Govt. of India and KSEBL guideline. The Central Financial Assistance and State subsidy if any, received from the Ministry and Govt. Department is distributed upfront to the beneficiaries or empanelled agencies as subsidy. To ensure the availability of service providers, KSEBL had invited Expression of Interest from Agencies for the Implementation for the Programme and had published the list of empanelled agencies in the website of KSEBL. The detailed guidelines of the programme, list of empanelled agencies with the rates quoted by them are also published in the website of ANERT. The beneficiary, after selecting the agency of his choice, shall invite them for a pre-installation survey and if the site is feasible, she shall issue a work order and enter into an agreement with the selected empanelled agency. They are also required to submit the copy of work order and agreement executed between himself and the agency. After receiving the commissioning report, ANERT will conduct an inspection for verification of the technical compliance of the plant installed. The responsibility of placing work order and executing the agreement after choosing an agency of his/her wish or need lies only with the beneficiary. The timeline or installation, payment condition, warranty, etc are clearly listed in the agreement executed between the beneficiary and the empanelled agency. ANERT’s responsibility with the beneficiary is limited to the above only. The warranty claims if any need to be settled between the beneficiary and empanelled agency, which had installed the system. The empanelled agency (2nd opposite party) who was entrusted by the beneficiary for the installation of the Solar Power Plant System and if fails to execute the work the empanelled agency had sole responsibility for the delay in installation. The role of ANERT was to inspect the solar power plant installed at the premises of the complainant and release the Govt. subsidy, if the plant was installed as per the required technical specifications. The 2nd opposite party is solely responsible for all the lapses pointed out by the complainant. Any lapse on the part of the empanelled agency is the clear violation of the contract agreement executed. Hence it is prayed that the complaint may be settled between the complainant and empanelled agency selected by the complainant, viz, Green Roof Solar Pvt. Ltd. (2nd opposite party.)
4. Evidence
The evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and documentary evidence filed by the complainant which is marked as Exbt. A1 to A4. No oral evidence adduced by the complainant. Opposite party No. 1 has no oral or documentary evidence.
At the time of hearing, the complainant had filed an I.A. 252/2023 to produce one additional document to prove the case and to substantiate his arguments. I.A. 252/2023 allowed and additional document filed by the complainant ie. statement of account of complainant’s bank account which is maintained at Federal Bank, Ernakulam North Branch is marked as Exbt. A4. Evidence closed and heard the complainant.
We have gone through the complaint, version and documents filed by the complainant.
5. Points for consideration in this case are as follows:
1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?
For the sake of convenience, we consider issue No. (1) and (2) together.
Exbt. A1 is the photocopy of the photograph of the complainant’s car shed. 9 solar panel can be seen at the yard of the car shed. Exbt. A2 is a bill issued by K.S.E.B. in the name of the complainant for Rs.5,243/-. Exbt. A3 is an agreement executed between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party on 21/01/2022 to execute the work of Solar Power Plant installation under SOURA – Phase II Programme of K.S.E.B..
As per Exbt. A3
· Cost Estimation
Supply & Installation excluding Net Meter - 1,90,500/-
Subsidy - 57,383/-
Net amount to be paid - 1,00,117/-
· Payment terms
1. Rs.5,000/- on signing agreement and successful site assessment report
2. Rs.1,28,117/- on work scheduling confirmation
· Installation
System installation would be carried out within 15 days from the work confirmation.
As per Exbt. A4 on 07/03/2022 an amount of Rs.1,33,117/- is debited from the complainant’s account which is maintained at Federal bank, Ernakulam North Branch. From Exbt. A4 it is clear that the complainant has paid the full amount to 1st opposite party as per the agreement. Complainant has filed proof affidavit. It is affirmed in the proof affidavit that the work is not completed within the stipulated time.
2nd opposite party has not turned up and no version filed by 2nd opposite party within the statutory period. The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainants stands unchallenged by the opposite party. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant against the opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
In the instant case, 2nd opposite party is duty bound to complete the work within 15 days from the date of work confirmation. The agreement for the installation of solar power plant was executed on 21/01/2022 between the parties. Hence opposite party No. 2 is duty bound to complete the work on or before 5th February, 2022. From Exbt. A1 it can be seen that solar panels are placed at the yard of the complainant’s car shed.
The complainant had affirmed in the proof affidavit that ‘the erection of work from their part partially completed as on 13/05/2022’ and still now they have not completed the work by non-providing Shine Phone App.
The 2nd opposite party had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the 2nd opposite party in failing to provide the Complainants desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainants.
Hence we cannot disbelieve the argument of the complainant about the non-completion of the work by 2nd opposite party. 1st opposite party in their version contended that the cost of installation for the solar power plant was collected from the Empanelled Agency selected by the complainant. It is the responsibility of the Empanelled Agency to provide installation, commissioning and maintenance support to the complainant. 1st opposite party also contended that they had never interfere in the purchase or transaction procedure taken place between the complainant and 2nd opposite party. ANERT had also no role in the selection of 2nd opposite party from the Empanelled list and the sole discretion of the complainant to select the empanelled agency to installation of the solar power plant. The 2nd opposite party is only responsible for all the lapses pointed out by the complainant. Any lapse on the part of empanelled agency is the clear violation of the contract agreement executed.
The role of ANERT was to inspect the solar power plant installed at the premises of the complainant and release Govt. subsidy if the plant was installed as per the required technical specifications.
We have verified the documents thoroughly. There is no contractual relation between the complainant and the 1st opposite party as proved from the documents filed by the complainant. The complainant has paid full amount to the 2nd opposite party as per the agreement between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party. The complainant alleges that 2nd opposite party has not completed the work as agreed. The complainant stated in the proof affidavit that the erection of work is partially completed on 13/05/2022. Here in the instant case, the Commission made in a conclusion that 2nd opposite party is solely responsible for the non-compliance of the contract within 15 days from the work schedule confirmation, even though the complainant had paid full amount ie. Rs.1,33,117/- to the 2nd opposite party on 07/03/2022. Hence Point No. (1) and (2) are proved in favour of the complainant.
The complainant has suffered mental agony, inconvenience and financial loss due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the 2nd opposite party. In the result the following order is passed.
1. The 2nd opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the inconvenience and mental agony suffered by the complainant.
2. The 2nd opposite party shall pay an amount of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as cost of proceedings.
The above order shall be complied with within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. If the above order is no complied within one month the amount ordered vide (1) will carry interest at the rate of 5% per annum from the date of order till realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Commission this 30th day of March, 2023.
Sd/-
Sreevidhia.T.N, Member
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/- V.Ramachandran, Member Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar
APPENDIX
Complainant’s evidence:
Exbt. A1: Photocopy of the photograph of the complainant’s car shed
Exbt. A2: Copy of bill from K.S.E.B. in the name of complainant for Rs.5,243/-.
Exbt. A3: Copy of agreement executed between the complainant and the 2nd opposite party
Exbt. A4: Copy of Bank Statement
Opposite parties’ evidence
Nil.
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No.297/2022
Order Date: 30/03/2023
