BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD

FA NO.719 OF 2013 AGAINST CC NO.92 OF 2012

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, RANGA REDDY

Between:

Carrier Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Limited,

A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956,

Having its registered office at Narsingpur,

Kherki Daula Post, Gurgaon – 122 001,

(through its authorized representative

Mr.Sudarsan Gopalan).

…Appellant/Opposite party No.3

And

1)       Md.Muneer Ahmed

          S/o Md.Maqbool Ahmed,

          R/o H.No.2-4-123/65, Plot No.15-57/2,

          Near Venkateswara Temple,

          Swaroopnagar Colony,

          Peerjadiguda, Uppal,

          R.R. District, Hyderabad.

…Respondent/Complainant

2)       Mr.V.Ashok, Sales Manager,

          PCH Retail Limited, 7-102/6 & 11,

          Uppal Road, Beside ICICI Bank,

          Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

3)       Mr.Arun, Manager,

          PCH Retail Limited,

          7-102/6 & 11, Uppal Road,

          Beside ICICI Bank,

          Habsiguda, Hyderabad.

          (Respondents 2 and 3 are deleted from

          cause title, per orders dt.19.02.2016

          of NCDRC, New Delhi).

…Respondents/Opposite parties 1 & 2

Counsel for the Appellant        :         Sri K.Vishweshwar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents   :         Sri J.Ravinder & V.Mallesham-R1

Coram                  :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla   …      President

and

Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member

Monday, the Twenty Seventh day of March

Two thousand Seventeen

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

          This is an appeal filed by the Opposite party No.3 aggrieved by the orders of District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy dated 10.05.2013 made in CC No.92/2012 in allowing the complaint and directing the Opposite parties therein to give a new Air-Conditioner of the same model to the complainant, failing which, they shall pay Rs.38,500/- towards its value including installation charges and further directing to pay a total compensation of Rs.65,000/- to the complainant towards loss of other property and mental agony granting time of 30 days for compliance. 

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3)       The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant along with his brother-in-laws went to the shop of Ops 1 and 2 for purchase of air-conditioner on 24.05.2012 and after thorough enquiry, purchased the split Air-conditioner of 1.5 tonne 5 star curve model of Carrier make for a consideration of Rs.37,500/- under invoice dated 24.05.2012.  On 26.05.2012, the employees of the Ops 1 and 2 came to his house and installed the same with cable by collecting the charges of Rs.987/-.  On the next day i.e., on 27.05.2012 at about 9.00 a.m. the AC suddenly caught fire and it spread all over the room.  The curtains, leather bags, frame of almirach, clothes on the bed total worth Rs.50,000/- were gutted in the fire.  The hall-tickets of complainant, his two brothers and their brother-in-law for appearance in Group-I entrance examination were also burnt, which was scheduled to be held on 27.05.2012.  As a result of which, they could not attend the examination and lost their career and suffered with mental agony.    

4)       Immediately, the complainant made a telephonic call to the Ops 1 and 2 and informed the factum of fire accident.  The complainant also took photographs of the place of incident.  Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint with Police Station, Medipally on 29.05.2012, who in turn, have registered a case in Cr.No.270/2012 and issued first information report, against the Ops.  The Opposite parties neither replaced the air-conditioner nor compensated the loss sustained by the complainant in spite of several requests.  The complainant also sent a personal notice on 04.06.2012 to the Manager of the shop, who too kept quiet without giving any reply.  Hence, the complaint with a prayer to direct the Ops to give the new air-conditioner and to compensate the loss of Rs.50,000/- and for mental agony and Rs.1,11,513/- towards the career loss together with costs of the complaint.

5)       The Opposite parties 1 and 2 remained exparte.  Opposite party No.3 filed its written version raising preliminary objection and contending that the complaint is vexatious, baseless and is more of an abuse of the process of law as there is no allegation against.  As the unit was in working condition at the time of delivery/installation, question of payment of compensation does not arise.  The complainant is well versed with the warranty terms and conditions provided through user manual.  As per the terms of warranty, the warranty is on the whole unit for a period of one year from the date of purchase, which includes free of cost repairs or replacement of any part or parts of the unit proved to be defective in material and workmanship.  The warranty on the compressor is for four years following one year comprehensive warranty. 

6)       The warranty does not cover any loss of refrigerant caused due to sabotage, improper handling or treatment, carelessness, accident, fire, flood, earthquake or any act of God or any corrosive action on the original refrigerant pipes, fittings, valves, etc.,  The complainant failed to file any expert opinion/ report to show any defects in the unit purchased by him.  There is no specific allegation against it and in absence of which, complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The fact of cause of fire being unknown, uncertain and unidentified, detailed and lengthy evidence would be required which is vested with a civil court as the facts themselves speak.  Hence, the forum has no jurisdiction.  Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

7)       During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the Complainant filed his evidence affidavit and Exs.A1 to A6 and on behalf of the Opposite parties, one Mr.Sudarsan Gopalan, its Manager (Legal) filed evidence affidavit.

8)       The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint bearing CC No.92/2012 by orders dated 10.05.2013, as stated, supra, at paragraph no.1.  

9)       Aggrieved by the above orders, the Appellant/Opposite party No.3 preferred the above appeal contending that the forum below (a) reached unfounded conclusions by failing to consider terms of warranty; (b) passed an unreasonable order directing replacement of air-conditioner with compensation towards loss of property; (c) failed to consider the fact that the very fact of the cause of fire being unknown, uncertain and unidentified, detailed and lengthy evidence would be required which can be gone into by a civil court but not the consumer forum; (d) failed to consider the fact that the appellant is not liable for the spark that may have caused the fire in the said room due to defective running of the AC unit; (e) failed to consider the fact that no expert evidence was let-in.  Hence, prayed to set aside the orders impugned and allow the appeal.

10)     The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned orders as passed by the District Forum suffer from any error or irregularity or whether they are liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?  To what relief ?

11)     It is pertinent to mention here that after preferring the above appeal, the appellant failed to pursue the matter and thereby the erstwhile Commission had passed orders dismissing the appeal by confirming the orders of forum below, by orders dated 03.09.2014.  As against the same, the appellant herein preferred revision before the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi wherein, by orders dated 19.04.2016 remanded the matter back for disposal on merits by setting aside the orders and restoring the matter to its file.

12)     It is not in dispute that the Respondent No.1 herein purchased the air-conditioner unit manufactured by the Appellant herein, from the shop of Respondent No.1 on 24.05.2012 for a valid consideration which is provided with a comprehensive warranty for a period of one year and extended warranty covering the compressor for a period of four years as is evident from Ex.A1.  It is also not in dispute that the said unit was got installed by the personnel of the Respondents 2 and 3 through its personnel on 26.05.2012 by collecting an amount of Rs.987/- as is evident from Ex.A2.  It is also not in dispute that above air-conditioner caught fire on 27.05.2012 at 9-00 a.m. as is evident from Ex.A4. 

13)     In the report given to the police, in crystal clear terms, the Respondent No.1 mentioned that the air-conditioner caught fire on 27.05.2012 at 9-00 a.m. all of sudden resulting which, the clothes, curtains and furniture along with the air-conditioner unit was burnt.  To prove that fire took-place to the air-conditioner unit, the Respondent No.1 filed the photographs marked as Ex.A6.  A perusal of the same would not show any burning of furniture except the window and the curtain where the air-conditioner was installed.

14)     The appellant would contend that no expert evidence is placed on record to show that the unit is faulty one.  Admittedly, the Respondent No.1 caused a notice on the appellant as well as Respondent No.2 (local seller) on 04.06.2012 requesting to compensate the loss sustained by him, to which, there was no response.  Nothing prevented the Appellant from deputing its technical personnel to evaluate the cause of the accident.  If at all, there had been any short-circuit or other problem, the entire premises of the Respondent No.1 could have caught fire which is not the case in the present appeal.  May be due to faulty installation, the fire occasioned in the air-conditioner unit. 

15)     Nothing prevented the Appellant from carrying-out investigation as to the cause of accident.  A perusal of the terms and conditions of warranty, filed as Annexure-A, it is evident that installation, reinstallation, services or repair shall be carried-out only by service provider authorized by CARL (Carrier Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Limited).  Admittedly, the installation work was carried-out by the personnel deputed by the Respondent No.2 seller, which is not in denial.  It is also not the case of the appellant that the technicians who attended the installation work are not competent to do so or that they are not authorized by it. 

16)     Even it is not the case of the appellant that the Respondent No.1 did not permit its personnel to inspect the air-conditioner unit.  No efforts are made by the Appellant to examine the burnt air-conditioner unit and ascertain the cause of accident.  It is also not the case of the appellant that the Respondent No.1 was unaware of the use of the air-conditioner unit.  For the reasons best known, the Appellant failed to file the user’s manual to contend that on account of improper use, the fire took place.  May be, there was some defect in installation of the unit, which resulted in fire.  Appellant even failed to examine the persons who installed the unit that the same had been installed properly and that they are competent and qualified to install the unit. 

17)     The burden of proof shifts on the appellant to prove the reasons for burning of the air-conditioner unit by fire and establish the same by expert evidence which was also observed by our predecessors in the earlier orders and the appellant failed to take advantage of the same by producing any expert evidence.  We may state that the District Forum has taken all the facts into consideration and awarded the replacement of the unit with a new one or on failure, to repay the amount of Rs.38,500/- including the amount collected towards installation of the unit, which cannot be found fault with. 

18)     In fact, it is clear from the statement of objects and reasons of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that it is to provide a forum for speedy and simple redressal of consumer disputes.  It has to observe the principles of natural justice and the fora constituted therein have been empowered to give reliefs of a specific nature and to award wherever appropriate compensation is required, to consumers.  When such is the intendment of the enactment, hyper technical rules need not be taken into cognizance.  Hence, the contention of the appellant that only the civil court is having jurisdiction to enquire into the matter is not convincing.

19)     In so far as grant of compensation of Rs.65,000/- is concerned, the same is unreasonable and without any evidence, which, we feel, is on higher side and the same requires to be reduced to Rs.30,000/-.  For the foregoing reasons, we modify the orders of the forum below dated 10.05.2013 passed in C.C.No.92 of 2012 and answer the point framed for consideration at paragraph No.10, supra, accordingly.

20)     In the result, the appeal is allowed in part modifying the orders dated 10.05.2013 passed in CC No.92/2012 by the District Consumer Forum, Rangareddy and directing the appellant to pay the compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards loss of the property, to Respondent No.1 and confirm the order in other aspects, with costs of Rs.5000/- to be payable to the Respondent No.1, within four weeks.   

PRESIDENT                       MEMBER

Dated 27.03.2017