NEW DELHI: A district consumer commission in Vizianagaram, Andhra Pradesh, has ordered a solar installation company to pay a homeowner more than Rs 25,000 with interest, after finding it overcharged him on net-metering costs and failed to generate the electricity it had promised from his rooftop solar system.What was the issueIjjada Vivekananda, a resident of Vizianagaram, applied in November 2023 to install a 3.24 kWp rooftop solar system under the central government’s PM Surya Ghar Yojana scheme, through Amplus KN One Power, an authorised dealer. He signed an agreement in December 2023 and took a loan of Rs 1,72,794 to pay for the project, which the lender paid directly to the company.The dealer had assured him the system would generate an average of 376.59 units of electricity a month. But Vivekananda said that after the system was installed in March 2024, it generated far less power than promised for months together, including zero units in several months, leaving him without the savings on his electricity bill that he was counting on to help repay his loan.He further said that, on the dealer’s instructions over WhatsApp, he paid Rs 13,500 to a person named Vijay towards net-metering charges. But the official net meter receipt he later got showed the actual cost was only Rs 2,771, meaning he had been overcharged by Rs 10,729. He further said the company delayed giving him a proper invoice for months, issuing one only in September 2024.The company denied all the allegations and argued that it never guaranteed a fixed monthly output, since solar generation depends on weather, sunlight and grid conditions, and that any payment made to a third party like Vijay without its written authorisation wasn’t binding on it.What the commission saidThe bench comprising president R Venkata Nagasundar and members B Sridevi and Ashok Kumar Sharma found the company’s own agent had directed the extra payment.“This prima facie establishes that the Opposite Party collected an excess amount of Rs. 10,729/- under the pretext of net meter charges, thereby supporting the allegation of unfair trade practice,” the commission held.It added that the company was “vicariously liable for the acts of their agent.”On the shortfall in power generation, the commission agreed with the company that the promised 376.59 units a month was only an estimate, not a binding guarantee. Even so, it said a lower, reasonable output could still be expected.“This commission feels that generation of power on an average 300 units per month can be reasonably expected,” it said.Going by that yardstick, it found the system fell well short between July and September 2024, generating only 144 units against an expected 900, and awarded Rs 4,536 to cover the gap.The company was directed to pay Rs 10,729 towards the excess net-metering charge, Rs 4,536 for the shortfall in generation, Rs 5,000 as compensation for mental agony, and Rs 5,000 towards legal expenses, a total of Rs 25,265, along with 9 per cent annual interest, within 45 days.
