Uttarakhand Ombudsman Rules Consumers Responsible For Rooftop Solar Maintenance, Rejects Bill Waiver Appeal

The Electricity Ombudsman of Uttarakhand has dismissed an appeal filed by a consumer seeking relief from electricity bills caused by the prolonged malfunction of a rooftop solar power plant. The ruling clarifies that under existing rooftop solar agreements, the responsibility for maintaining the solar system rests with the consumer and not with the power distribution company.

The case involved Shri Sundar Mani Dabral, who represented his wife, Anita Dabral, the registered consumer of a domestic electricity connection in Kirtinagar, Tehri Garhwal. A 3 kW rooftop solar plant had been installed at their residence in March 2021 under a central government rooftop solar scheme. The installation was carried out by an empanelled vendor, M/s Success Impex Pvt. Ltd., and the system was connected to the grid after commissioning.

According to the complaint, the solar plant failed to export electricity to the grid for nearly five years because of a faulty inverter. The defect was repaired only in November 2025 by the installation company. During this period, the household received little or no benefit from solar power generation and continued to rely on electricity supplied by Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited (UPCL). As a result, electricity bills continued to accumulate, leaving outstanding dues of more than ₹17,000 by early 2026.

Dissatisfied with the poor performance of the solar plant, Dabral initially approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum at Srinagar. In February 2026, the Forum directed UPCL to recommend the blacklisting of the empanelled solar vendor for failing to provide proper maintenance and after-sales service. However, the Forum did not grant any relief regarding the pending electricity bills.

Seeking further relief, Dabral filed an appeal before the Electricity Ombudsman. He requested that UPCL either waive the accumulated electricity charges or recover the amount from the solar installation company, which he held responsible for the malfunction. He also sought directions requiring both UPCL and the vendor to certify the future performance and efficiency of the rooftop solar system.

UPCL opposed the appeal, stating that its responsibilities were limited under the rooftop solar agreement. The utility referred to Clause 7.3 of the agreement, which clearly places responsibility for the operation, maintenance, repair, and safety of the rooftop solar plant on the consumer up to the interconnection point. UPCL explained that its responsibility begins only from the net meter and the electricity distribution network connected to the grid.

After examining the agreement and the records, Electricity Ombudsman D.P. Gairola accepted UPCL’s position. The Ombudsman observed that the power distribution company cannot be held responsible for the malfunction, poor performance, or maintenance of a privately owned rooftop solar system. Any dispute related to defective equipment or inadequate after-sales service is a commercial matter between the consumer and the installation vendor.

Accordingly, the Ombudsman dismissed the appeal and modified the earlier order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The decision also allows UPCL to recover the outstanding electricity dues from the consumer in accordance with the law. The ruling highlights the importance of regular maintenance of rooftop solar systems and makes it clear that distribution companies are not financially liable for equipment failures caused by third-party vendors.