The Vizianagaram District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission president R Venkata Nagasundar and members B Sridevi and Ashok Kumar Sharma, was hearing a complaint filed by one Ijjada Vivekananda against Amplus KN One Power Private Limited (Authorised Dealer, Kumar Associates) over the installation and performance of a 3.24 kWp rooftop solar system under the PM Surya Ghar Yojana.
Holding the company liable, the commission said on June 11, “The act on the part of the Opposite Party (Amplus KN One Power Private Limited) in collecting excess amount towards net metering charges and not generating power units as per the specifications of the brochure certainly causes mental agony to the Complainant.”
It further held that the company was bound by the assurances it had given, and that its conduct amounted to both a deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The dispute stemmed from the complainant’s allegation that, despite spending over Rs 2 lakh on the rooftop solar project and financing it through a loan, the solar system consistently underperformed, while the dealer also recovered thousands of rupees in excess of the actual cost of installing the net meter.
Homeowner opted for rooftop solar
According to the complaint, Vivekananda applied through the APEPDCL portal on November 29, 2023, for installation of a 3.24 kWp rooftop solar system under the Centre’s PM Surya Ghar scheme after paying a registration fee of Rs 1,180.
He entered into an agreement with the dealer on December 27, 2023, paid Rs 10,000 as advance and later secured a loan of Rs 1,72,794 from K M Global Credit Private Limited, which was directly disbursed to the dealer. He also made additional payments of Rs 32,561, Rs 637, and Rs 13,500 towards net-meter charges as instructed by the company’s representative.
Story continues below this ad
The complainant said the dealer had assured that the solar system would generate an average of 376.59 kWh every month, resulting in significant savings on electricity bills.
However, after the solar system was installed on March 23, 2024, it allegedly failed to achieve the promised generation. Between March and October 2024, the complainant claimed he suffered financial losses because of poor power generation while continuing to repay monthly EMIs on the loan. He also alleged that invoices, receipts and warranty documents were not supplied for months despite repeated requests.
Dealer denied guarantee
The company denied all allegations and argued that it had never guaranteed fixed monthly power generation. According to the dealer, the figure of 376.59 kWh mentioned in its material was merely an estimate because solar generation depends on external factors such as weather, sunlight, shading, dust accumulation, grid availability and the consumer’s own electricity usage.
It also argued that the complainant’s loan arrangement was independent of the company, that invoice delays occurred due to GST portal procedures, and that net-meter charges were determined by electricity authorities rather than by the dealer.
Story continues below this ad
Commission finds excess recovery
After examining the evidence, the commission found that the complainant had paid Rs 13,500 towards net-meter charges on the instructions of the company’s representative. However, the official receipt showed that the actual charge for the net meter was only Rs 2,771, meaning Rs 10,729 had been collected in excess.
Rejecting the company’s argument that it was not responsible because payment had been made to another individual, the commission held that the payment had been made at the direction of its authorised representative and therefore the company was vicariously liable for the actions of its agent. It observed that the excess recovery supported the allegation of unfair trade practice.
Power generation fell far short
- The commission also examined whether the rooftop solar system had delivered the performance represented to the consumer.
- While accepting that 376.59 kWh per month could not be treated as a guarantee, it held that the company remained bound by the expectations created through its own brochure.
- Taking into account weather conditions, sunlight availability and grid-related factors, the commission held that a generation of around 300 units per month was a reasonable expectation.
- Official records, however, showed that from July to September 2024, the system generated only 144 units in July and nil units in both August and September.
- Against the expected generation of 900 units during the three months, only 144 units were generated, resulting in a shortfall of 756 units.
- Using the applicable retail tariff of Rs 6 per unit, the commission calculated the complainant’s loss at Rs 4,536.
No separate compensation for delayed invoices
Although the commission noted that invoices and warranty documents were supplied only after repeated requests and months after installation, it held that the complainant had not produced sufficient evidence to prove any independent financial loss solely because of the delayed documentation. Accordingly, no separate compensation was awarded on that count.
Relief granted
Partly allowing the complaint, the commission directed Amplus KN One Power Private Limited to refund Rs 10,729 collected towards excess net-meter charges along with 9 per cent annual interest from May 8, 2024, till realisation, pay Rs 4,536 towards the shortfall in electricity generation with 9 per cent annual interest from November 3, 2025 (the date of filing of the complaint) until payment, Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs 5,000 towards litigation expenses. The commission dismissed the remaining claims and directed the company to comply with the order within 45 days of receiving it.
Story continues below this ad
Significance
The ruling is significant because it makes clear that solar installation companies cannot rely on broad disclaimers about weather or sunlight after making specific performance representations to consumers. If a dealer collects amounts over and above actual statutory charges or fails to deliver a system that reasonably matches the performance promised in its own brochure, consumer forums can hold it liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The order also reinforces that companies are responsible for the actions of their authorised representatives. Even if excess payments are collected through a third person on the company’s instructions, the company can be held vicariously liable and directed to refund the money, pay compensation, and compensate consumers for losses caused by the underperformance of the product.
For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Andhra Pradesh helpline: 0866-2551431) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.