IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Tuesday the 28th day of February, 2017
Filed on 25.10.2013
Present
- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member)
in
C.C.No.329/2013
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri. M. Abdul Salam 1. The Proprietor, Ramco Agencies
Mamoottil Oppo. KSRTC Bus Stand
Arattupuzha North P.O. Mavelikara
Thrukkunnappuzha (By Adv. P. Anilkumar)
Alappuzha
(By Adv. T.A. Venugopal) 2. M/s. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., 40/1270, Vasudeva Buildings T.D. Road, Ernakualm
Cochin – 682 011
(By Adv. A.K. Rajasree)
O R D E R
SMT. ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is as follows:-
Complainant purchased a LG Refrigerator from the first opposite party on 31.1.2013. On August, 28 at 3 a.m. the electric circulation became stopped and they heard a voice from the kitchen and find that the Refrigerator burned. In the early morning, they inspected the electricity system of the house and there was no defects and thereafter they understood that when the Refrigerator got burned, the electricity stopped with the help of power breaker. Since the fire initiated from the Refrigerator, it completely burned and the mixi and wall almarah also damaged. The total loss at the preliminary stage is amounts to Rs.50,000/-. In order to repair the damages caused by the incident an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- is to be needed. The incident occurred only due to the manufacturing defect of the LG electric refrigerator. He informed the matter to the first opposite party, but there was no result. He sent a registered notice to the opposite parties on 29.9.2013. The first opposite party received the notice and the 2nd opposite party refused to receive the notice. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complaint is filed.
2. The version of the first opposite party is as follows:-
It is true that the complainant purchased a Refrigerator from the first opposite party, but they have no knowledge about the incident alleged by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is selling International standard items and no complaints so far made about the burning of the fridge. It can be due to the defect of the stabilizer. There is no defect and deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party.
3. The version of the 2nd opposite party is as follows:-
The complainant purchased a Refrigerator and washing machine of LG Electrics Company on 30.1.2013. Since then till the date of alleged incident there is no complainant against the company of defective goods or deficiency in service. The company never recommends using stabilizer. The complainant was using an old stabilizer that too placed on the top of the fridge, clear violation of the company policy. On getting the information from the complainant, the company personals along with photographer visited the premises of the complainant for inspection and understand the cause of fire. The team found that the compressor of the refrigerator was intact and there was no gas leakage and after thorough analysis it is found that the fire initiated from other source. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party.
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.A1 to A9. Exts.A8 and A9 marked subject to objection. One witness was examined as PW2. 2nd opposite party was examined as RW1. Documents produced were marked as Exts.B1 and B2. One witness from the side of the opposite party was examined as RW2. In order to inspect Refrigerator of the complainant an expert was appointed and the expert report produced is marked as Ext.C1. The expert was examined as CW2. In order to assess the damages sustained by the complainant an expert was appointed and the expert report is marked as Ext.C2. The expert commissioner was examined as CW1.
5. The points came up for considerations are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief and cost?
6. It is an admitted fact that complainant purchased the Refrigerator from the first opposite party on 31.1.2013 as per the invoice No.2712. According to the complainant on 28.8.2013 the said fridge caught fire in the early morning and due to the fire, the Refrigerator almost burned out and a lot of damages and loss was caused from the heat generated by the fire and smoke spread all over the inside walls and that caused crack on the walls and roof. The first opposite party filed version stating that he is a dealer of a branded company, he has no knowledge about the incident. The 2nd opposite party filed version stating that they never recommended using of stabilizer for the fridge that they supplied and fire initiated not from the Refrigerator but from the external source. Ext.A3 produced by the complainant shows that the price of the Refrigerator is Rs.18,149.78 + Rs.2,450.22 (output vat @ 13.5%) = Rs.20,600/-. According to the complainant due to the fire the fridge fully burned out and a lot of damages caused to many other items. In order to substantiate the allegation of the complainant, an expert commissioner was appointed to inspect the Refrigerator and its accessories and file report about it. The expert commissioner produced the commission report and it marked as Ext.C1. Ext.C1 was prepared on 19.9.2014. The incident was occurred on 28.8.2013. As per the report, “chance for the fire and burning of the fridge is only from the fridge compressor motor short.” The expert was examined as CW2. While cross examining him by the first opposite party, the question put forward by the learned counsel, “A\-[n-Ir-X-amb coXn-bn stabilizer D]-tbm-Kn-¨-Xp-sIm-mWv fridge I¯n-bXv F¶p ]d-bp¶p?” he answered that, “wiring sNbvXn-cn-bv¡p-¶Xv protection-t\mSp-Iq-Sn-bmWv. Stabilizer-sâ Ipg¸wsIm-m-sW-¦n protection AXns\ safeguard sN¿pw.” Another question put forward by the learned counsel of the 2nd opposite party, “fridge- sâ apI-fn `mc-apÅ stabilizer sh¨-Xp-sIm-mWv C{]-Imcw I¯n-b-sX¶p ]d-bp¶p?” He answered that, “icn-b-Ã, fridge I¯n apI-fn h¶-Xn-\p-ti-j-amWv stabilizer I¯p-¶Xv.” Even though the opposite party challenged the qualification of the expert, during the cross examination, he deposed before the Forum that he has diploma in electrical engineering and he has also completed refrigeration and air condition course. He also produced the trade proficiency certificate issued from the Indian Air Force as Electrician 1. Hence he is a qualified expert competent to ascertain the matters. The main contention of the opposite party is that they never recommended to use the stabilizer, but the complainant was using an old stabilizer by placing on the top of the Refrigerator. The complainant produced the owner’s manual of the Refrigerator and it marked as Exdt.A4. In page No.16 of the owner’s manual, under the title. Before calling for service type of complaint No.2 it is stated that, “when the Refrigerator attempt to start, but does not operate the remedy provided is install a line connecting transformer in the mains or a voltage stabilizer.” Hence the contention of the opposite parties 1 and 2 that the company never recommends using of stabilizer is unsustainable. From the report of the expert commissioner, it is clear that the fire occurred inside the fridge and compressor burned the frame and some stripes of cooling coil. No reliable evidence adduced by the opposite party to prove that fire initiated from other sources. Hence we are of opinion that the Refrigerator burned due to the manufacturing defect and the 2nd opposite party is bound to compensate the complainant.
7. According to the complainant due to the heat generated by the fire, smoke spread all over the inside walls and roof of the kitchen and also caused lot of damages to the other items in the kitchen. In order to ascertain the said damages an expert was appointed and she has inspected the site on 22.5.2015, the report produced is marked as Ext.C2 and the expert commissioner was examined as CW1. As per the C2 report the cost for repair caused due to fire is estimated as Rs.39,000/-. The damage caused to the complainant on account of various happenings due to the burning of fridge is explained in the Ext.C2 report. She prepared the estimated cost for the repair of the house. But it is pertinent to notice that during cross examination she admitted that she is a close relative of the complainant. So CW1 is an interested person. But the Ext.A9 the photos produced by the complainant which marked through PW3 depict the damages and the loss caused to the house of the complainant. Since the complainant has not been able to provide the actual value of the articles damaged looking into the overall facts and circumstances, we are awarding a compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant for the loss of belongings and mental trauma and harassment.
In the result, complaint is allowed. The 2nd opposite party is directed to pay the value of the fridge Rs.20,600/- with 9% interest from the date of complaint till realization to the complainant. The 2nd opposite party is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and
pronounced in open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2017.
Sd/- Smt.Elizabeth George (President) :
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member) :
Sd/- Smt.Jasmine.D. (Member) :
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - M. Abdul Salam
PW2 - Shameer. M. (Witness)
Ext.A1 - Copy of the retail invoice dated 26.11.2009
Ext.A2 - Copy of the Paper publication
Ext.A3 - Bill for Rs.35,700 dated 31.01.2013
Ext.A4 - Owner’s manual
Ext.A5 - Copy of the advocate notice dated 26.09.2013
Ext.A6 - Postal receipts
Ext.A7 - Acknowledgement card
Ext.A8 - Paper publication (Subject to objection)
Ext.A9 - Paper publication (Subject to objection)
CW1 - Remla Beevi (Court Witness)
CW2 - K. Chandran (Court Witnesss)
Ext.C1 - Commission report of Chandran
Ext.C2 - Commission report of Remla Beevi
Evidence of the opposite parties:-
RW1 - Saju K.R. (Witness)
RW2 - K.C. Sajikumar (Witness)
Ext.B1 - Photos
Ext.B2 - Copy of owner’s manual
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite parties/S.F.
Typed by:- pr/-
Compared by:-
