Delhi

East Delhi

CC/272/2017

SAMITA NARULA - Complainant(s)

Versus

QUICK SOLAR SOLU. - Opp.Party(s)

19 Oct 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 272/2017 

 

	SMITA NIRULA R/O- J-1139, PALAM VIHAR, GURGAON, HARYANA-122017	….Complainant
Versus
1	QUICK SOLAR SOLUTIONS 663, MAYUR VIHAR PHASE-I, NEW DELHI-110091	……OP1
2	STRUT SUPPORT SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. UNIT-1, JASPAL BANGAR ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA C, DHANDHARI KALAN, LUDHIANA-141010	……OP2

 

Date of Institution: 21.07.2017

Judgement Reserved on: 20.09.2022

Judgement Passed on: 19.10.2022

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Ritu Garodia (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

By this order the Commission shall dispose off the complaint filed by the Complainant, a senior citizen, alleging deficiency of service on the part of OPs by not providing her the Solar Energy System at her residence as per the order placed by her and instead installing altogether different Solar System. 

The Complainant has contended in her complaint that OP1 is subsidiary of OP2 and is engaged in the business of providing services like supplying and installation of Solar Mounting Systems for residential, commercial, industrial and other kind of Projects. Complainant was desirous of installing a Solar Energy System at her residence. OPs offered the Complainant their services in supplying, installing and commissioning of 7.5 kw Solar Mounting System at the residence of the Complainant. The said Solar Mounting System as per the quotation was to be a Rooftop/shade ‘On Grid Tied System’.  The On Grid Tied Solar Mounting System is Photovoltaic Power System that generates power when it is connected to the Utility Power Grid and it has to be connected to the Power Grid for smooth functioning.  The excess power generated by the system is sent back to the Grid for which credit is awarded to the owner at a later stage and this credit is adjusted against the Power Bill. 

Whereas, the Hybrid System is an ‘Off Grid Power System’ which requires complex installation and involves higher costs. Complainant opted for buying ‘On Grid Tied Solar Mounting System’ and she changed her batteries of her Inverters from OP3 (since deleted) on the advice of OP1. She was told that the Power System will have a 12 months warranty period from the date of its successful commissioning. 

The total amount of Invoice quoted by OP1 for 7.5 Kilo watt ‘On Grid Tied Solar Mounting System’ was Rs.6,82,500/-  and Freight Charges were Rs.28,254/-. Complainant paid Rs.6,14,000/- and Freight Charges of Rs.28,254/- towards installation.  At the time of installation complainant was informed by OP1 that the electricity requirement of the complainant shall be met by 7.5 kW Solar Mounting System.  On 06.04.2016, OP1 informed that the project of installation and commissioning of the Solar Mounting System stood completed however that statement of OP was not correct as their system was not yet commissioned finally and when confronted, she was assured by OP1 that all problems and shortcomings in the commissioning of the system will be resolved by them.  However, right from the time the system was installed the complainant faced problems and the complainant wrote email dated 10.07.2016 to OP1 that she wants ‘a Solar feed into the electric connections connected to the inverter’ and ‘a Solar inverter backup 24x7 with electricity charging during non daylight hours’.  This requirement was because ‘On Grid Solar Mounting System’ gives round the clock power back up even if there is no sunlight.  However, there was no response from the OP.  She wrote thereafter other emails also dated 19.07.2016, 24.07.2016 and 01.08.2016 to OP1 but the same remained unanswered.  On 04.08.2016 OP1 sent one email to the Complainant that they have to change the ‘Hybrid Inverter’ to ‘Grid Tied Inverter’ which will resolve all the issues of the complainant and there is no other alternative and extra payment of Rs.135000/- was demanded.

This took the complainant aback because she had paid for the ‘On Grid Solar Mounting System’ and could not understand the requirement of changing to Grid Tied when she already had a ‘Grid Tied System’ and it was more shocking as the Complainant had already paid 90% of the total amount for the ‘On Grid Solar Mounting System’ as per the terms of quotation.  She sent a text message on 04.09.2016 to one Mr. Praveen Aggarwal who works for the OP1 complaining about the Inverter of OP3 (since deleted) as the Inverter had no output and she also made another text message on 10.09.2016 about the fluctuations on the lines connected to the Inverter.  A meeting was fixed thereafter with the officials of OP1 with the Complainant and she was informed that Solar Mounting System sold to the complainant was not Grid /Net Metering System but Hybrid System that is why there are problems arising.  Alleging that the OP1 kept the complainant in dark about the System installed at her residence and the OP1 provided her with ‘Hybrid System’ whereas the complainant had ordered and paid for a ‘On Grid Tied Solar Mounting System’, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking following relief:

• Direct the OPs to refund Rs.6,14,000/- paid by the Complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of payment till realization;
• Direct the OPs to pay Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and physical hardship caused to the Complainant;
• Direct the OPs to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant.

Though initially Complainant had impleaded 3 OPs, the third being Enertech UPS Private Ltd., however on 11.08.2017, OP3 was deleted as not being necessary party and Complainant filed Amended Memo of Parties retaining only OP1 & OP2.

OP1 and OP2 have filed their reply jointly. In their reply OP1 and OP2 have stated that on behalf of the complainant one Mr. Anand was negotiating and installation and commissioning of the work was done as per the quotation. The quotation dated 30.01.2016 was for 7.5 KW Solar Mounting System and the same was for ‘Grid System’ but on the desire of Mr. Anand, the System was modified to ‘Hybrid System’ which is superior technology and thus the upgrade version was installed at the residence of the Complainant and additional cost was borne by the OP. The Hybrid System required 48V output to maintain the System and thus there was requirement of two more batteries which was informed to Mr. Anand. The total consideration amount as per quotation was Rs.6,82,500/- along with Freight Charges of Rs.28,254/-. It was assured that the balance 10% amount and Freight Charges will be paid only after commissioning but have not been paid. After system was installed it was running successfully. OP never committed that the system which was Green Energy System will provide 24x7 backup and there were chances of tripping. What ever complaints were there from the side of complainant the same were replied and rectified.

Complainant filed Rejoinder to the Reply of OP1 & OP2 reiterating the contents of her complaint and she has stated that she ordered ‘On Grid Tied Solar Mounting System’ because it generates power when connected to utility power Grid and excess power as generated by the system is sent back to the Grid for which credit is awarded to the owner and adjusted in electricity bill. She has not paid the balance amount of 10% as after commissioning, the System was not working properly and no occasion has arisen for the Complainant to pay the balance amount. Due to OP1’s advice only she purchased and replaced her old batteries of the Inverter from OP3 (since deleted) and that the Solar System installed by the OPs is not functioning properly. She has also denied that the system was modified to ‘Hybrid System’ as per her desire.  She has reiterated that she never wanted ‘Hybrid System’ and had opted for ‘On Grid Tied Solar Mounting System’.  She has also stated that it is inconceivable to imagine that a commercial organisation like OP would install alleged superior technology at the price of inferior technology. 

Complainant has filed her evidence by way of affidavit wherein she has marked the following documents as exhibits:

• Quotation submitted by OP as Exhibit CW1/1.
• Copy of invoice dated 21.02.2016 as Exhibit CW1/2 (Colly).
• E-mail dated 07.06.2016 and 10.06.2016 as Exhibit CW1/3 and CW1/4.
• E-mail dated 03.06.2016 as Exhibit CW1/5.
• E-mail dated 10.07.2016 as Exhibit CW1/6.
• E-mail dated 18.11.2016 as Exhibit CW1/7.
• E-mail dated 24.07.2016 and 05.08.2016 as Exhibit CW1/8 and CW1/9.
• E-mail dated 04.08.2016 as Exhibit CW1/10.
• E-mail dated 14.10.2016 and Text massage as Exhibit CW1/11.
• E-mail dated 14.10.2016 as Exhibit 1/12.
• E-mail dated 17.10.2016 as Exhibit 1/13.
• Copy of Notice dated 30.03.2017 as Exhibit 1/14.
• Copy of reply of OP dated 29.04.2017 as Exhibit 1/15.

No Evidence by way of Affidavit was filed by OP1 & OP2.

The Commission has heard arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the Complainant and perused the documents on record. Despite several dates fixed, no arguments were put forth by OP1 and OP2.

Since OP1 is subsidiary of OP2 and they have filed the reply jointly, the Commission therefore will be dealing with their common defence here onwards so as to have clarity.

The case of the Complainant is that she on the presentation by the OP to purchased Solar System for her residence decided to go for ‘On Grid Solar Mounting System’ and for this the OP raised invoice of Rs.6,82,500/-  and freight charges of Rs.28254/-. Complainant paid 90% of the Invoice amount and also paid freight charges. On the suggestion of OP, she also purchased and replaced Batteries of her Inverter to get the best result of the ‘ON Grid System’ she intended to purchase.  However instead of installing the product she had ordered, the OPs installed a different product altogether which was ‘Hybrid System’. The System installed by the OP at her residence did not function and there was always tripping problem and supply of electricity was irregular. She made several complaints to the OP however the issue was not resolved.

Exhibit CW1/1 which is the Quotation given by OP and is titled as ‘7.5kW Solar Mounting System’ and the installation type has been mentioned as ‘ON Grid Tied System’. Exhibit CW1/2 is the Invoice dated 21.02.2016 raised by OP for providing 7.5kW Solar Project ON Grid System along with supply and commissioning for a total amount of Rs.6,82,500/- out of which payment of Rs.6,14,250/- (which was 90% of the Invoice amount) was made by the Complainant.  However after installation and commissioning of the system the problem arose and there was tripping problem and E-mail dated 10.07.2016 (Exhibit CW1/4) was sent in which Complainant had written that she wanted Solar Inverter backup 24x7 with electricity charging facility during non day light hours, but she was not getting the basic facility for which the system was initially installed i.e. of Grid Connectivity and this E-mail was further followed by another E-mail dated 24.07.2016 (Exhibit CW1/8). There was no reply to these E-mails from the OP side and further E-mail dated 05.08.2016 (Exhibit CW1/9) and E-mail dated 14.10.2016 (Exhibit CW1/11) were sent to OP but again there was no response from OP. Finally OP gave reply to the E-mail dated 17.10.2016 (Exhibit CW1/13) wherein it was only written that ‘Praveen Sir is not well since a week that is why he is not responding .....’. There was no further action from the side of OP to resolve the issue and rather they came up with the stand that the original order placed for which Invoice was raised and 90% payment was received by them was modified by one Mr Anand on behalf of Complainant to ‘Hybrid System’.

OP has contended that one Mr Anand was negotiating on behalf of the Complainant and that he (Mr Anand) agreed for ‘Hybrid System Off Grid Power System’ instead of ‘On Grid Solar Mounting System’ as the same was more advanced technology. Who is this Mr. Anand, has not been explained anywhere, and what authority he had and what relation he had with the Complainant has not been disclosed.  This appears to be an after thought put up by the OP.  It is also pertinent to note that though OP received payment from the Complainant but they never thought it fit to confirm from her when they changed this system to ‘Hybrid System’.  Further, perusal of Quotation submitted by OP (Exhibit CW1/1) and the Invoice dated 21.02.2016 (Exhibit CW1/2 - Colly) reveals that the quotation as well the order placed was for ‘On Grid Solar Mounting System’. No documentary evidence for proving their point as above has been produced by OP hence their contention is untenable and lacks merit.

OP has not filed its Evidence by way of Affidavit nor filed any document in support of their stand, and due to their non-production of evidence by OP, the case of the Complainant goes unrebutted as far as documentary evidence is concerned. Further the stand of OP also does not hold water and appears to be only to find an escape route to avoid their responsibility towards the Complainant and the same is without any substance. The OP has miserably failed to prove their stand and defend the contention raised by the Complainant in her complaint.

Installation of Solar System requires expertise which OP was holding and they won the confidence of the Complainant by their presentation and discussion to get the Order but they did not keep their commitment and instead played with the trust and sentiments  reposed in them by the Complainant to get a fault free ‘On Grid Solar Mounting System’ installed at her residence.  Further, the Complainant acted as per their advice and even changed batteries also of her Inverter which was actually not required in the ‘On Grid Solar Mounting System’ and it caused extra financial burden on the Complainant.

There is total unprofessional approach shown by the OP and they also played tricks with the Complainant after receiving 90% of the Invoice amount and they kept the Complainant in dark about the actual Solar System they were installing at her residence. Any Consumer in such type of specialised product relies on the Dealer or his representative. This was a high end costly product and OP should have installed the originally ordered Solar System rather than different one which disturbed the whole equilibrium of the residence of the Complainant as she suffered financially/mentally. Further, the Commission is of the view, that once the contract is for installation and commission of a particular product and 90% payment has been made, the Complainant had nothing to worry nor would be interested so as to keep an eye on the working of OPs. She trusted them and relied upon them. It is to be observed even if the OP are doing their work within the framework and even if 99% of the installation is complete and only 1% is remaining, the commissioning cannot be said to be complete and in that eventuality, the payment of 90% of amount would be of no use to the Complainant.  The Complainant in this case has paid about Rs. 6,14,000/- but the amount is not worth if the system is not commissioned and is not giving the assured results.

 

From the reasons stated supra it is evident that OP1 and OP2 installed an altogether different Solar System than the one which was ordered after having received 90% of the Invoice amount which amounts to  deficiency in service besides being Unfair Trade Practice and Commission holds OP1 and OP2 liable for the same and orders as follows:

• OP1 & OP2 will remove the ‘Hybrid Solar System’ installed by them at the residence of the Complainant at their own cost, without causing any physical damage to the residence of the Complainant by taking all due precautions and they (OP1 & OP2) shall jointly and severally refund Rs.6,14,000/- alongwith 7% interest from the date of payment to the Complainant.
• OP1 & OP2 to pay jointly and severally Rs.35,000/- towards mental agony and harassment to the Complainant.
• OP1 & OP2 to pay jointly and severally Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation to the Complainant.

This order as above shall be complied by OP1 & OP2 within 90 days from the date of receipt of the Order failing which OP1 & OP2 shall pay 9% interest on each of the above amount till the date of payment.

 

Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

 

(Ritu Garodia) Member

(Ravi Kumar)    Member

(S.S. Malhotra)         President