State Commission Upholds Dismissal of Solar Panel Complaint, Cites Lack of Evidence for 'Deficiency in Service'

New Delhi – The Consumer State Commission, presided over by Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President) and Ms. Pinki (Member, Judicial), has dismissed an appeal filed by a consumer against Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd., reinforcing the principle that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to establish a "deficiency in service." The Commission found that the consumer failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of improper installation and malfunctioning of a solar power system.

Case Background

The case originated from a complaint filed by Mr. Rakesh Sharma, who had purchased a Solar Power Generation System from M/s. Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. for a total of Rs. 3,25,000, of which he paid Rs. 3,08,750. Mr. Sharma alleged that the system did not function correctly due to two primary issues:

• The Module Mounting Structure (MMS) was installed at a reduced height of 1.6m and 1.65m, instead of an allegedly agreed-upon height of 1.8m.
• The company failed to disclose that the solar plant would only be functional when the main BSES power supply was active.

After his attempts to resolve the issue with the company failed, he approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission seeking a full refund with interest, along with compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs. The District Commission dismissed his complaint, noting that he failed to produce any agreement specifying the 1.8m height or any technical evidence proving the system's malfunction was due to the reduced height. Aggrieved, Mr. Sharma filed the present appeal.

Arguments Before the State Commission

The Appellant , Mr. Sharma, reiterated his contention that the District Commission erred by not recognizing the reduced installation height as a clear deficiency. He argued that this deviation from the agreed terms, along with the non-disclosure about the system's dependency on the grid, hampered the plant's efficiency.

The Respondent , M/s. Luminous Power Technologies, denied all allegations. They maintained that the system was installed as per specifications and that the District Commission had correctly scrutinized all available material before dismissing the complaint.

Commission's Findings: The Crucial Role of Evidence

The State Commission centered its analysis on whether the respondent's actions constituted a "deficiency" under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act , 2019 . This section defines deficiency as any fault, imperfection, or inadequacy in the quality or manner of performance undertaken by a service provider.

Upon reviewing the case files, the Commission made several key observations that proved fatal to the appellant's case:

> "On perusal of record, we find that the height of the Module Mounting Structure of the Solar Plant in question is not specified as 1.8 m in the Proposal for the said plant... Further, we find that the Appellant has failed to adduce any evidence of the reduced height of the Solar Plant..."

The judgment highlighted a complete lack of documentary proof:

* No Written Agreement: There was no contract or proposal on record that mandated a 1.8m installation height.

* No Technical Proof: The appellant failed to submit any expert report or technical evidence linking the alleged reduced height to the solar plant's poor performance.

* No Evidence of Lower Output: The Commission noted that while the solar plant had a 5 kW capacity, the appellant's electricity bill showed a maximum demand of only 3.58 kW. The appellant provided no evidence to correlate the installation height with a lower-than-expected power output.

The Verdict

Concluding that the appellant's claims were unsubstantiated assertions without any supporting evidence, the State Commission found no reason to overturn the lower forum's decision.

> "In view of the forgoing, we are in agreement with the reasons given by the District Commission and fail to find any cause or reason to reverse the findings of the District Commission," the bench stated.

The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the original order in favor of Luminous Power Technologies. The case serves as a critical reminder to consumers to ensure all terms and specifications are clearly documented in a written contract and to gather concrete technical evidence when alleging a deficiency in service.