Delhi State Consumer Commission Upholds Dismissal of Complaint Against Luminous Power, Finds No Evidence of Deficiency in Solar System Installation
Pranav B Prem
The Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissed the appeal filed by one Rakesh Sharma and confirmed the findings of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission regarding the alleged malfunctioning of a Solar Power Generation System supplied by Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Commission held that the complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service and that no material was produced to prove improper installation or adverse performance of the solar system.
The case arose from the purchase of a Solar Power Generation System for ₹3,25,000, of which the complainant had paid ₹3,08,750 through multiple cheques. He alleged that the system did not perform properly because the Module Mounting Structure was installed at 1.65 m and 1.6 m rather than the purportedly agreed 1.8 m, and that the company had not disclosed that the plant would function only when the BSES grid supply was active. The complainant further stated that despite several efforts, including issuance of a legal notice, the problem remained unresolved, leading him to seek refund along with damages for mental harassment and litigation costs. The District Commission proceeded ex parte against the company due to its non-appearance but dismissed the complaint after finding no proof of any agreement mentioning the height requirement and noting the complainant’s failure to pay the remaining balance of ₹16,250.
In appeal, the complainant argued that the District Commission failed to appreciate the technical shortcomings of the installation and maintained that the reduced MMS height directly affected system output. It was further contended that withholding the information about the BSES grid dependency amounted to deficiency in service. The respondent denied all allegations and submitted that the plant was installed as per specifications and that the complainant had produced no document or evidence establishing the MMS height requirement or any deficiency in the performance of the system.
Before deciding whether the District Commission erred in dismissing the complaint, the State Commission examined Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which defines deficiency in service. Referring to the record, the Commission observed that the proposal relied upon by the complainant did not mention the height of 1.8 m. It recorded that “the Appellant has failed to adduce any evidence of the reduced height of the Solar Plant, and further perusal of record shows that there is no agreement between the Appellant and the Respondent regarding the height of the plant in question,” and that no technical material was produced to show that performance was adversely affected.
The Commission also examined the BSES bill relied upon by the complainant and noted that although the solar plant had a capacity of 5 kW, the Maximum Demand Indicator reflected a load of 3.58 kW, and no evidence had been placed on record showing any link between the alleged reduced installation height and lower output. It concluded that the allegation that the reduced MMS height caused deficiency in service was unsubstantiated and held that “the submission of the Appellant that the reduced installation height of the Solar Plant amounts to deficiency on the part of the Respondent is answered in the negative.”
Since the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service as defined under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the State Commission refused to interfere with the findings of the District Commission. As a result, the appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, and the FDR, if any, was directed to be released in favour of Luminous Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Cause Title: Mr. Rakesh Sharma Vs. M/S. Luminious Power Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Case No: FA/138/2023
Coram: Justice Sangita Dhingra Sehgal (President), Ms. Pinki (Member – Judicial)
