The failure to demonstrate deficiency in service leading to dismissal of the complaint is affirmed under consumer protection guidelines.

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that the Complainant purchased Solar Power Generation System from the Opposite Party and disbursed the amount of Rs. 3,08,750/- out of the contractual amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- via several cheques bearing no. 029848 and 029847, Bill no. 34 & 31. After successful payment the Opposite Party delivered and installed the system but the Complainant had faced some problems as the system was not worked properly because the Opposite Party did not installed the system at agreed height as MMS height was reduced to 1.65 m & 1.6 m for both sites respectively instead of 1.8 m as was agreed. After that, the Complainant tried to contact the Opposite Party several times to contact the opposite party but he did not receive any constructive reply till now. He tried several times to contact the Opposite Party and sought their help, but the company had not get resolved his issue and his efforts to get his refund has gone in vain. The fact that solar plant thus installed would remain functional only if BSES power supply continues was never explained at the stage of work. Complainant also sent legal notice to Opposite Party on 13.03.20 and get reply on 21.08.20. Complainant has prayed to refund the amount of Rs. 3,08,750/- with 18% penal interest w.e.f. April 2019 to till date. He has also prayed for Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental harassment and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Party consecutively on 3 dates i.e.11.11.21, 21.12.21 and 17.02.22. Therefore, it was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 22.04.22.”

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the order dated 27.02.2023, whereby it held as under:

“Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Complainant and we have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that he purchased a Solar Power Generating System from Opposite Party for an amount of Rs. 3,25,000/- and paid the amount Rs. 3,08,750/-. He further stated that the solar system was not worked properly because of MMS height was reduced to 1.65 m & 1.6 m for both parties, respectively instead of 1.8 m was agreed upon the parties.

5. The Complainant did not bring any agreement between the parties which specified the MMS height of 1.8 m. Further, there was no material placed on record regarding any technical problem being faced in the solar system because of reduced height of MMS. And the Complainant also admitted that he did not pay the balance payment of Rs. 16,250/- to the Opposite Party.

6. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed.”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the District Commission the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal contending that the District Commission has failed to appreciate that the Solar Plant was not working efficiently as the Module Mounting Structure of the said plant had been installed at a reduced height instead of the agreed height as per the Proposal. It is further submitted that the District Commission failed to appreciate the Solar plant which has been installed by the Respondent would remain functional only if BSES power supply continues and this fact was neither explained nor rewarded at the stage of work. Pressing the aforesaid submissions, the Appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned judgment.

4. The Respondent has filed its Rep