Delhi State Consumer Commission Rejects Appeal Against Luminous Power; Holds No Evidence Of Deficiency In Solar Plant Installation

Facts of the Case:

The complainant purchased a Solar Power Generation System from Luminous Power Technologies (Opposite Party) for ₹3,25,000, of which he paid ₹3,08,750 through multiple cheques. He alleged that the system was not functioning properly because the Module Mounting Structure (MMS) was installed at 1.65 m and 1.6 m instead of the agreed 1.8 m. He further claimed that the company failed to disclose that the solar plant would function only when the BSES grid supply was active.

Despite several complaints and a legal notice, the issue was allegedly not resolved, and the complainant sought a refund along with compensation for mental harassment and litigation costs. The District Commission proceeded ex parte against the company but ultimately dismissed the complaint, noting that there was no agreement or material proving the MMS height or any resulting defect, and further observing that the complainant had not paid the remaining ₹16,250 of the contractual amount.

Aggrieved, the complainant filed the present appeal before the State Commission.

Contentions of the Complainant:

The complainant, Mr. Rakesh Sharma, contended that the District Commission failed to appreciate the technical shortcomings of the solar system and argued that the reduced installation height of the Module Mounting Structure directly affected the plant's efficiency. He further submitted that the respondent never disclosed the operational limitations of the solar plant—particularly that it would function only if BSES power supply was available—which, according to him, amounted to a deficiency in service and suppression of material information.

Contentions of the Opposite Party :

Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. denied all allegations and maintained that the solar system, including the Module Mounting Structure (MMS), had been installed strictly as per the required specifications. They argued that there was no deficiency in service, and the District Commission had correctly evaluated all available material before dismissing the complaint. The Opposite Party also emphasized that the complainant had not produced any agreement or document to show that the MMS height was required to be 1.8 meters, nor had he provided any evidence establishing that the alleged reduced height caused any technical issues in the functioning of the solar system.

Observation and Decision of the Commission:

The Commission observed that the complainant failed to produce any agreement or evidence showing that the solar plant was required to be installed at the height of 1.8 metres, nor any technical proof that the alleged reduced height affected its performance. It noted that the proposal relied upon by the complainant contained no mention of the claimed height, and no material was placed on record to show any deficiency in the functioning of the solar system.

The Commission further noted that the complainant had not produced any evidence linking the reduced installation height with lower output, nor any material demonstrating deficiency with respect to the load capacity of the solar plant when compared with the BSES bill's Maximum Demand Indicator (MDI). In the absence of any evidence establishing deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Commission found no reason to interfere with the District Commission's order and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: MR. RAKESH SHARMA VS. M/S. LUMINIOUS POWER TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.

Case No.: FA/138/2023