The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Ludhiana has directed a solar power installation company to refund Rs 11 lakh to a consumer, Siraj Din Bali, a resident of Millerganj, for failing to install a solar plant at his residence. Holding the firm guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, the commission also imposed a composite cost of Rs 20,000, granting the company 30 days from the date of receiving the order copy to clear the payment.
Interest on Refund
Additionally, the commission ordered the firm to pay the Rs 11 lakh refund with an interest rate of 8 percent per annum, calculated from the date the complaint was filed until the actual payment is made.
Background of the Case
The matter dates back to February 2023 when Bali approached the firm to install a 29 KWp on-grid solar power generating system at his residence. The total commercial proposal was fixed at Rs 13,63,000, approximately Rs 14 lakh including GST at 13.08 percent. As per the agreement, Bali paid an advance of Rs 11 lakh in two installments through RTGS: Rs 5,00,000 via a cheque dated March 4, 2023, and Rs 6,00,000 via a cheque dated April 3, 2024, from a bank in Ludhiana. The remaining Rs 3,00,000 was to be cleared post-installation.
Non-Completion of Work
Although the firm delivered some raw materials to Bali's premises, weeks passed without any assembly or site visits by their team, leaving the project incomplete. Bali's multiple personal requests and a subsequent legal notice dated November 30, 2024, went completely unanswered by the firm. Consequently, Bali approached the consumer commission seeking a full refund, Rs 5,00,000 for mental agony, and Rs 35,000 for litigation expenses.
Firm Fails to Appear Before Court
The opposite party failed to appear before the commission despite being served a notice, leading the panel to proceed ex-parte. Upon evaluating the available evidence, the commission observed that the firm displayed dishonest intentions right from the inception of the formal agreement to gain wrongfully. The panel concluded that the firm's conduct went beyond basic service deficiency, amounting to a clear adoption of unfair trade practices.
