##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/6/A/697/2018

SOLAR GREEN COMPANY PRESENT ADDRESS - 49, 2ND FLOOR, GUPTA COMPLEX, OP. PREM HOSPITAL

BISHANSARUP COLONY, PANIPAT. ,HARYANA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus SUMIT

PRESENT ADDRESS - VILLAGE AND POST OFFICE KAMLI, TEHSIL AND DISTT. SONEPAT. ,HARYANA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

MR. S . P . SOOD , JUDICIAL MEMBER MR. SURESH CHANDER KAUSHIK , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

MS. MEENAKSHI SAROOP, PROXY COUNSEL FOR MR. VISHAL YADAV, COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT.

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

RESPONDENT ALREADY PROCEEDED AGAINST EX-PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED

09.09.2024.

DATED: 25/03/2026

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

Date of Institution: 28.05.2018

Date of final hearing: 25.03.2026

Date of order: 25.03.2026

First Appeal No.697 of 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:-

Solar Green Company, 49, 2^nd Floor, Gupta Complex, Opp. Prem Hospital,

Bishansarup Colony, Sonepat, through its Proprietor Parvesh.

...Appellant

Versus

Sumit S/o Sh. Sudhama, R/o Village and Post Office Kamli, Tehsil and District Sonepat.

…..Respondent

CORAM: SH. S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER.

SH. S.C. KAUSHIK, MEMBER

Present:- Ms. Meenakshi Saroop, proxy counsel for Mr. Vishal Yadav, counsel for the appellant.

Respondent already proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated

09.09.2024.

ORDER

PER: S.P. SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

In present appeal No.697 of 2018; legality of order dated 06.11.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.328 of 2017 has been assailed; vide

which complainant’s complaint has been partly allowed.

2. Factual Matrix: Complainant contacted OP for purchase of solar system for his domestic purpose and upon assurance by OP to provide best services, complainant agreed to install solar system of 2KVA on the roof of his house for the purpose of supply of 1400 volts electricity. OP charged Rs.2.00 lakh from the complainant. The authorized person of OP namely Neeraj charged Rs.20,000/- for

installation of solar system with the assurance that complainant has given 25 years warranty and if there is any problem, the same will be solved out without any charges. After installation of solar system, said solar system was not working properly and complainant made so many complaints to OP, but of no use. Complainant has also visited the office of OP either to solve the problem or to replace the solar system or to refund of Rs.2,20,000/-. OP sent Neeraj who demanded huge amount of bribe to solve the said problem and OP also demanded Rs.2.00 lakh from the complainant to solve the problem. Due to shortage of electricity supply, complainant is unable to do his daily work and his children are unable to study. Complainant is also unable to run his small factory i.e. nut-bolt

factory only due to this act and conduct of OP.

3. Despite notice, none has appeared on behalf of OP and OP was proceeded

against ex-parte vide order dated 03.10.2017 by learned District Commission.

4. Complainant led his respective evidence, oral as well as documentary. On analyzing the same; learned District Consumer Commission has partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 06.11.2017 and directed OP to remove the defects of the solar system of complainant and to make the solar system into working order

without charging any amount from the complainant.

5. Feeling aggrieved; OP has filed this appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. With his able assistance; record too has been perused. Respondent/complainant was proceeded against ex-

parte by this Commission vide order dated 23.10.2019.

7. Learned counsel for appellant/insurer has urged that the appellant is only

liable for any defect in the installation and for any defect in any component installed in the solar system, concerned company i.e. Okaya Power Pvt. Ltd. and Tata Power Solar are liable for that defect. There is no defect in the installation of the s