DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the   10^th day of February, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

             : Smt.Vidya A., Member                       

             : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member          Date of filing: 22.09.2018                                                                                        

CC/113/2018

Narayanan Nair M

S/o Narayanan Nair, Mariyil (Sarovaram)

Kumbidi (P.O)

Palakkad – 679 553                                      -         Complainant

                                                           V/s

1. The Director

ANERT (Agency for Non-Conventional Energy

& Rural Technology)

Department of Power, Government of Kerala

Law College Road, Vikas Bhavan (P.O)

Trivandrum – 695 033

2. The District Engineer

ANERT (Agency for Non-Conventional Energy

& Rural Technology)

Opposite Town Railway Station

Palakkad – 678 001

3. Bharat Sevak Samaj, New & Renewable Energy

    Division, “Sooryam”, Sathbavana Bhavan,

    Bhramin’s Colony Lane, Kowdiar (P.O)

    Thiruvananthapuram – 695 003

4. K.Sreekumaran, Block Co-ordinator of

Bharat Sevak Samaj, Kallidumbil House

Akalur (P.O), Palakkad – 679 302                            -         Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt. Vidya.A, Member

1.  Pleadings of the complainant in brief 

Complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party to register under the ‘solar smart’ off grid solar rooftop programme with subsidy of ANERT for installation of solar roof top power plant.  He paid Rs.1,000/- as registration fee on 14/02/2017 and registration number was allotted to him by opposite parties 1 & 2 for availing the subsidy.  Subsequently the work order for the installation was given to 3^rd opposite party, which is an empananelled agency under that programme.  As per the agreement executed between the complainant and 3^rd opposite party, the work order was accepted by 3^rd opposite party for an amount of Rs.1,95,940/- and it was confirmed by the 2^nd opposite party.  As per the 1^st opposite party’s order, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 1,28,440/- after reducing the subsidy to the account of Bharat Sevak Samaj, 3^rd opposite party on 18/04/2017.  3^rd opposite party provided 5 years warranty at the time of installation and an assurance that any complaint will be attended by the agency within 48 hours and problems will be cleared within 7 days.

    From the beginning itself, there were several complaints in the solar power plant. 

1. The DCDB (DC Box and Automatic Changeover) was not working properly and showing wrong display.
2. The main problem was that the 4 solar panel of 250 watts did not work after 6 months.  Opposite parties had given 25 years warranty for the panels.  Finally after repeated requests they replaced it with some low quality brand which did not work from the initial stage of fixation itself.
3. The automatic changeover of the solar power plant did not properly work eventhough the opposite parties had given 5 years guarantee for the switches.
4. The batteries provided for the solar power plant is also of poor quality and did not have the storage capacity.  The opposite parties did not give any service to the complainant as per their terms and conditions.

On repeated requests, a technician from Bharat Sevak Samaj visited the complainant’s house and inspected the solar panels and informed that the solar panels are not working.  But he did not repair or replace it.

    On 16/06/2018 the complainant caused the issuance of a legal notice stating these facts.  After receiving the notice, on 10/07/2018 one supervisor of 3^rd opposite party came and checked the solar power plant.  He informed the complainant that there are complaints in the 4 batteries and the DCDB Ammeter is also not working.  He took the batteries for recharging, but afterwards there was no reply from him.  The DCDB Ammeter is also not repaired. 

There is clear deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and they are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for that.  The conduct of the opposite parties had caused great mental agony and pain to the complainant.

    The installation of the solar power generation is not intended for any commercial purpose; it is only for domestic purpose.  The Commission is vested with Jurisdiction to entertain the matter.

So the complainant approached this Commission for directing the opposite parties:

1. To repair or replace the Solar Power Plant to the satisfaction of the complainant or to pay Rs. 1,29,440/- with 12% interest per annum from 18/04/2014 till realization.
2. To pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and pain.
3. To pay the cost of the litigation and such other reliefs which are incidental thereto.

2.   After admitting complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties.  The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.

3.   1^st and 2^nd opposite parties filed version contending that ANERT is the nodal agency of Ministry of New and Renewable Energy, (MNRE) Government of India and designated agency of Government of Kerala for the implementation of New and Renewable Energy programme in State of Kerala.  The role of ANERT is to facilitate the beneficiaries of Kerala intending to install solar power plants with Central Financial Assistance.  ANERT is implementing schemes for Rooftop Solar power plants as per Government of India guideline and the Central financial assistance received is distributed to beneficiaries as subsidy.  To ensure the availability of service providers, ANERT had invited application and had published the list of empanelled agencies in their website.  A registration process was initiated for registering as beneficiary for allotment of subsidy under this programme.  Each beneficiary is intimated about the actions to be taken further to proceed in the scheme.

          The beneficiary has given the freedom to select any of the agencies for implementation of the project at his premises based on his choice.  The beneficiary after selecting the agency invite them for a pre-installation survey and if the site is feasible, a work order is given and enter into an agreement with the selected agency.  The beneficiary has to submit the pre-installation survey report, copy of work order and agreement to the concerned District office of ANERT.  On completion of installation, a commissioning report along with an undertaking of the beneficiary to release the subsidy to the agency is also to be submitted to the District office.  After receiving commissioning report, ANERT will conduct an inspection for verification of the technical compliance.  Price was calculated after deducting the subsidy amount from the actual cost of the system and the subsidy amount is provided directly to the agency.  The timeline of installation, payment conditions, warranty etc have to be clearly listed in the agreement executed between the beneficiary and the agency.  ANERT will release the subsidy amount to the agency which has installed the system on satisfactory completion and performance of the system.

          It is the responsibility of the empanelled agency (3^rd opposite party) who had installed the solar system to rectify the complaints and maintain the warranty conditions.  The beneficiary and the agency had executed an agreement in this regard while issuing work order and ANERT as a state agency is only a facilitator of the CFA.

4.   3^rd and 4^th opposite parties raised the following contentions in their version:

      Under “Solar Smart” off Grid Solar Roof Top Programme of ANERT, 3^rd opposite party is only an empanelled agency for the installation of solar panel by the order and direction of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.  The fixation of 4 solar panels, DCDB, inverter and battery were done by the qualified service personals of Bharat Sevak Samaj as per the direction and guidelines given by the complainant.  It is seen from the complaint that the solar panel worked properly without any problem more than 6 months.  Whenever they got complaints from the complainant they attended the issue and given operating direction on the battery, inverter and other components of solar panel.  Damage may occur due to misuse.

          4^th opposite party is the Block Co-ordinator of Bharat Sevak Samaj and they only conduct the business of taking order from the required individuals as per 3^rd opposite party’s direction.  They make the required person fill the application and make arrangement to register with ANERT to get the subsidy.

          All the complaints registered with Bharat Sevak Samaj has been rectified.  Invertor by brand name (Aethun) was replaced by Inverter by brand name (Vispra) and the one which is replaced is defective and rectification is under process.  They have detailed the complaints made by the complainant and the service done by them.

1. Panel complaint – 4 panels replaced.
2. DCDB Ammeter complaint – Replaced by new DCDB.
3. Battery complaint – 4 batteries charged.
4. Inverter complaint – replaced by new Inverter.

So they have rectified all defects, except the inverter complaint which is under process and they are ready to complete it as per complainant’s direction.  So the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost. 

5.   From the pleadings of both parties, the following points arise for consideration:

1. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that the parts of Roof Top Solar power plant installed by the opposite parties suffer from defect?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs as cost and compensation.

6.   Complainant filed proof affidavit and Ext. A1 to A15 marked from his side.  3^rd and 4^th opposite parties also filed proof affidavit.  No documents were marked from their side.  Complainant filed a panel of experts without filing any application to appoint Expert Commissioner at the first instance.  Later on complainant filed IA 14/22 for appointment of Expert Commissioner and it was allowed.  Expert Commissioner informed his inability to execute the warrant issued by the Commission.  Complainant was directed to file a fresh panel.  But they did not file and order in Commission application stands abated.  Evidence closed and heard.    

7.  Point No: 1

      Complaint averment is to the effect that complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the installation of off grid solar Rooftop Power plant under “Solar Smart” programme with subsidy of ANERT.  Later, work order for installation was given to 3^rd opposite party which is an empanelled agency of 2^nd opposite party under the programme.

          As per the agreement between complainant and 3^rd opposite party, the complainant paid Rs. 1,28,440/- to the 3^rd opposite party’s account after deducting the subsidy.  They have given a warranty of 5 years for the product.  From the beginning, there were several complaints with respect to the Solar Power Plant.  Some of the complaints pointed out by the complainant are:

1. Its DC box and automatic change over did not work; it was not replaced even after requests.
2. 4 solar panels of 250 watts were not working after 6 months.  They replaced it after repeated demands, but the replaced one are of different brand which is low in quality and did not function from the initial stage of fixation.
3. The automatic changeover of the power plant did not properly work and the batteries provided for the Solar Power Plant is of poor quality and did not have the storage capacity.

A technician of the 3^rd opposite party visited his house and inspected the Solar Power Plant on account of the repeated requests of the complainant.  But he did not cure the defects or replaced the parts. 

8.   Ext. A10 is the letter dated 19/04/2018 written by the complainant to the District Engineer, ANERT complaining about the defects in the Solar Power Plant installed by 3^rd opposite party.  Ext. A11 is the notice dated 04/07/2018 given by ANERT to 3^rd opposite party directing them to rectify the defects within 7 days of the receipt of notice.  Ext. A12 dated 10/07/2018 shows that the 3^rd opposite party admits the complaints in the battery and DCDB Ammeter raised by the complainant.  Also the technician of 3^rd opposite party seeks permission to take the batteries for Recharging.

9.   In their version, the 3^rd opposite party contended that panel complaint is rectified by replacing the 4 panels, DCDB Ammeter complaint is solved by replacing new DCDB, 4 batteries were charged and rectified.  Inverter complaint replaced by new inverter under process.

10. But the complainant in his affidavit dated 18/05/2019, has stated that supervisor of the 3^rd opposite party, with an assurance letter, took the 4 batteries for recharge; after words, there is no reply from him.  The DCDB-Ammeter is also not repaired.  He added that even after the notice issued by ANERT, the 3^rd opposite party has not rectified the complaints.

11. There was no attempt on the part of the 3^rd opposite party to rebut the contentions put forth by the complainant.  They did not file proof affidavit or took any steps to cross examine the complainant to bring out the veracity of their contention.

12. Ext. A14 is the service report dated 28/09/2018 issued by 3^rd opposite party.  It contains the following remarks “System not working, Showing overload without any load connection.  May be the board, relay or switching problem.  Need to change parts or system.” Customer saying system worked only 3-4 Hrs.”

          After this report, in the affidavit dated 18/05/2019, also the complainant raised the same issue.  Opposite party had failed to adduce any evidence to show that they have rectified the defects and the system is working.  So in the absence of any evidence, we are inclined to accept the evidence adduced by the complainant.  So the complainant had proved that the Solar Power Plant installed by 3^rd opposite party suffer from defect.

      Points 2 to 4 are considered together

13. As per the conclusion arrived at Point: 1, the Solar Power Plant installed by 3^rd opposite party is not working.  So there is clear Deficiency in service on the part of 3^rd opposite party in not curing the defects by replacing the parts or repairing it even after repeated demands by the complainant.  So they are liable to compensate the complainant for that.

14. There is no specific allegations against 4^th opposite party.  It is stated by 3^rd opposite party that 4^th opposite party is the Block-Co-ordinater of 3^rd opposite party and indulged in taking order from required individuals for registration with ANERT.  So 4^th opposite party is exonerated from liability.  Role of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party, ANERT as contended by them is to facilitate the beneficiaries of Kerala intending to install solar power plants with Central Financial Assistance.  The agreement for the installation of Solar Power Plant is executed between the beneficiary and Agency.  But as per the contract, the system installed should comply with technical requirements required by Ministry of New & Renewable Energy (MNRE) and ANERT.  When a system installed by the agency of ANERT installed under their supervision, stops functioning within 6 months of its installation, ANERT has to give direction to their agency to rectify the defects at once.  Eventhough ANERT has issued notice to 3^rd opposite party for curing the defect; the 3^rd opposite party did not take adequate measures to resolve the issue.  The complainant has not adduced any evidence showing deficiency in service on the part of 1^st and 2^nd opposite party, so they are exonerated from liability.  Since the contract is between the complainant and 3^rd opposite party we are fixing liability only on them. 

15. Complainant suffered mental agony because of the recurring defects in the newly installed Solar Power Plant.  So it is clear that he has incurred financial loss in installing the product which did not serve the purpose.  Further additional financial burden and inconvenience is caused due to the litigation.  3^rd opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for the losses suffered by him.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.

    Since it has more than 5 years after the installation of Solar Power Plant, there is no meaning in directing the 3^rd opposite party to replace the defective parts of the Solar Power Plant.  So we direct

1. The 3^rd opposite party to pay Rs. 1 lakh as approximate cost of the defective parts.
2. We further direct the 3^rd opposite party to pay Rs. 20,000/- for their deficiency in service, Rs. 15,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- as cost. 

The opposite parties shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.   

Pronounced in open court on this the 10^th day of February, 2023.      

                                                                                            Sd/-

                                                                                    Vinay Menon V

                                                                               President                                              

                                                        Sd/-

              Vidya.A

                             Member   

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                  Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                           Member

APPENDIX

Documents marked from the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 – Receipt issued by ANERT dated 14/02/2017.

Ext.A2 – Provisional Registration Letter received from ANERT dated 14/02/2017.

Ext.A3 – Allotment of registration No. by ANERT dated 31/03/2017.

Ext.A4 – Work order given to Bharath Sevak Samaj.

Ext.A5 – Agreement between Agency and beneficiary (true copy).

Ext.A6 – Agreement/Consent/Certificate from user/Beneficiary given by the complainant (true copy).

Ext.A7 – Warranty given by Bharath Sevak Samaj (true copy).

Ext.A8 – Bank statement of the complainant.

Ext.A9 –   Tax Invoice of Bharat Sevak Samaj dated 30/05/2017.

Ext.A10 – Complaint letter to The District Engineer, ANERT dated 19/04/2018 (true copy).

Ext.A11 – Notice issued by ANERT to Bharat Sevak Samaj dated 04/07/2018 (true copy).

Ext.A12 – Letter given by Bharat Sevak Samaj for taking Battery and DCDB dated 10/07/2018 (true copy).

Ext.A13 – Lawyer notice issued to opposite party dated 16/06/2018.

Ext.A14 – Installation/service report dated 28/09/2018.

Ext.A15 –    Letter issued by Bharat Sevak Samaj dated 10/07/2018.

Documents marked from the side of opposite parties – Nil

Witness examined from the complainant’s side: NIL

Witness examined from the opposite parties side: NIL

Cost- Rs. 10,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.