DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 23^rd day of June, 2023                                                                                              

                             Filed on: 28/06/2016

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                 Member                                                                  

C C  No. 368 of 2016

Between

COMPLAINANT

JOY. T.A., S/o. Abraham, Thattarayil, Punnorkode, Pazhamthottam P.O., 683565, Ernakulam District.

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, HPL Electric & Power PVT LTD, Dhatoori Road, Vill & P.O. Bhigam,  Gannaur - 131003, Sonepat (Haryana), India.
2. BRANCH MANAGER (HPL Branch Ernakulam),2^nd Floor, AKS Mahal Building XL/78131,  Achutha Watter Lane, MG Road, Ernakulam, Cochin.

(Rep. by Adv. C.P. Peethambaran, Thengummoottil Building, St. Maurous Lane, Opp. High Court, Ernakulam)

FINAL O R D E R

DB.Binu, President

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complaint was filed under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant, an ordinary farmer, had HPL company's LEDs placed in front of a photo of Jesus Christ in their house. On the 15th of the current month, at 4 o'clock in the daytime, a fire emerged from two holes at the base of the bulb, resulting in the burning of the photo frame. Fortunately, the complainant was present and managed to extinguish the fire with water, preventing a major disaster. The complainant emphasizes that if the incident had occurred at night or when nobody was at home, the photo frame could have been completely burnt, leading to the destruction of their house and potential loss of life. The complainant expresses distress caused by the memory of the incident. They visited HPL company's Ernakulam branch office, showing them a mobile phone photo of the burnt part and the bulb in question, but received no response, prompting them to file a complaint with the commission.

2).  Notice

          The Commission sent notices to the opposite parties, and they were acknowledged as received. The second opposite party has submitted its version in response to the notices. However, the first opposite party has appeared on 29/07/2016, but version has not been filed by the 1^st opposite party.

3). THE VERSION OF THE SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY

The opposite party denies the allegation that the complainant's L.E.D bulb was damaged due to a manufacturing defect. According to the complainant, the fire started from the lamp and spread to the photo frame, causing damage. The opposite party argues that the allegations are incorrect, exaggerated, and intended to extract money. They state that their products undergo rigorous testing and comply with safety standards. The opposite party suggests that the fire may have been caused by factors such as loose connections, faulty holders, or the absence of a Miniature Circuit Breaker (MCB). They argue that the complainant needs to prove that there was no fault on their side. The opposite party also disputes the value of the damaged frame and photo claimed by the complainant, as well as the amount sought for mental distress. They characterize the complaint as experimental, frivolous, and vexatious, and assert that no payment should be made.

4) . Evidence

The complainant had produced a proof affidavit and 2 documents. The complainant had also produced a bulb as the material object which is marked as M.O -1.

 Exhibit A-1. Photograph

Exhibit A-2. Photograph

5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:

i)       Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?

ii)      Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?

iii)     If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?

iv)     Costs of the proceedings if any?

6)      The issues mentioned above are considered together and are        answered as follows:

As per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment.  The complainant had produced a burnt bulb (M.O -1) along with two accompanying photographs as evidence (Exhibit A-1 and 2). The first opposite party's brand name is clearly visible on the product. The second opposite party has not contested the assertion that the bulb does not belong to them. Hence, the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite party.

The complainant submitted that the complainant alleges that the LEDs produced by HPL company were positioned in front of a photo of Jesus Christ in their house. One day, at 4 o'clock in the daytime, fire emerged from two additional holes at the base of the bulb, causing the frame of the photograph to burn. Fortunately, someone was present in the house and noticed the smell, extinguishing the fire with water and preventing a major disaster. The complainant expresses concern that if this incident had occurred at night or when no one was home, the photo frame could have ignited other flammable objects and potentially led to the complete destruction of the house or even loss of life. The complainant visited HPL's Ernakulam branch office and presented a photo of the burnt portion taken on a mobile phone, along with the problematic bulb, but no action has been taken by the company, prompting the complaint to be filed with the commission. The complainant experiences restlessness when recalling the incident.

The learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that the passage discusses the testing process and safety standards for a specific LED lamp, the 0.5W LBD lamp before it is launched for sale. The lamp undergoes rigorous testing, including operating at high and low voltages for specified durations, passing a high surge test, and meeting safety standards. The complainant alleges that the lamp caught fire due to various reasons, such as loose connections, faulty holders, or the absence of a Miniature Circuit Breaker (MCB). However, it is argued that the complainant needs to prove that there was no fault on their side and that the alleged incident is likely due to their own negligence. The complainant also claims damage to a photo frame and mental distress, demanding compensation, but the opposing party disputes these claims, considering them baseless, frivolous, and excessive.

We have also noticed that Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties and the second opposite party has submitted its version in response to the notice. However, the first opposite party did not file their version. The complainant had produced 2 documents which are marked as Exbt.A-1 to A-2 and (M.O -1).  But the first opposite party did not make any attempt to participate in the above proceedings before this commission. It was further stated that this illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified act of the first opposite party amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant.

The first opposite party’s conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them.  Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the first opposite party.  We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the first opposite party. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).

The complainant has not provided any documents to prove that they purchased the bulb from the second opposite party. However, they have produced the burnt bulb and two photographs of it as evidence. The brand name of the first opposite party is mentioned on the product. The second opposite party has not disputed the claim that the bulb is not their product. Despite receiving notice, the manufacturer (the first opposite party) has not responded to the allegations raised by the complainant. The second opposite party is attempting to argue that the warranty has expired. However, if the first opposite party's product may be caused damage to the complainant's life and property, the opposite parties cannot avoid responsibility solely based on a dispute over the warranty period of the product. Furthermore, the first opposite party, who is required to prove their innocence, has not filed their version or contested the case. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the allegations against the first opposite party, as made by the complainant, remain unchallenged.

The first opposite party had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the first opposite party in failing to provide the complainant’s desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.

We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the first opposite party. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the first opposite party.

In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the first opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant.

Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:

1. The first opposite party shall pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the loss and mental agony and physical hardships sustained by the complainant.
2. The first opposite party shall also pay the complainant Rs.2,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.

The first opposite party shall be liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the first opposite party within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission  on this the 23^rd day of June, 2023

Sd/-  

D.B.Binu, President                          

                                                                             Sd/-

                                                          V.Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

                                                         Sreevidhia T.N., Member

Forwarded/by Order

Assistant Registrarer

                                                                             Senior Superintendent

APPENDIX

COMPLAINANT’S EVIDENCE

1. Exhibit A-1. Photograph
2. Exhibit A-2. Photograph.

OPPOSITE PARTY’S EVIDENCE

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                   

kp/

CC No. 368/2016

Order Date: 23/06/2023