Firm fined for failing to properly install solar panel at Chandigarh home

Consumer panel orders solar panel firm to refund ₹70,000, pay ₹25,000 as compensation to the complainant, a resident of Sector 38, Chandigarh

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission 1 directed M/s Mahira, a unit of Staten Solar Technologies through their authorised signatory, Arun Kumar, of Industrial Area, Phase 9, Mohali, to refund ₹70,000 and pay further compensation — ₹15,000 for mental harassment and ₹10,000 for litigation costs — to a Sector 38 resident after they failed to properly install a solar power unit as mandated by the UT administration for house with an area of 500-sq yard and above in a 2016 notification.

A firm was fined for failing to properly install solar panel at a house in Chandigarh. (Shutterstock)

The complainant, Satya Paul Singla of Sector 38, had hired the firm to purchase a solar power unit of 3 kilowatt station capacity, adding that they were empanelled with Chandigarh Renewable Energy and Science and Technology Promotion Society (CREST). He paid a sum of ₹70,000 to the firm, who did not properly install the unit.

In a January 15, 2020, letter to CREST, he sought an inspection of the unit installed by the firm. They found that a grid tie inverter and bi-directional metre were yet to be installed and the work had been left incomplete. He filed a legal notice to the firm to no avail.

Nobody appeared on the behalf of the opposite parties (OP) and they were declared ex-parte.

The complainant had also made CREST an opposite party to the complaint. However, they contested the complaint and claimed that being a nodal agency for implementation of solar projects at Chandigarh, they empanel various vendors from time-to-time through e-tendering subject to the terms and conditions. CREST had blacklisted the firm while debarring it from all future tenders for three years.

The commission, meanwhile, observed the complainant failed to demonstrate as to how the act(s) of CREST amounts to the alleged deficiency of the service or unfair trade practice and removed them from the complaint.

However, the commission noted that since the firm did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant, it draws an adverse inference against them and shows that they have nothing to say in their defence against the allegations made by the complainant.

“The assertions of the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted. Under these circumstances, the complainant is entitled to a refund of the amount paid by him along with interest and compensation,” the commission further observed.

Vedant