Per Mr.B.S.Wasekar, Hon’ble President

1)                The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he purchased a fan from the shop of O.P.No.2 on 24^th March, 2011.  The O.P.No.1 is a Manufacturer of the fan. On 17^th April, 2011, the said fan stopped functioning therefore the complaint was lodged with the Customer Care of the O.P.No.1.  On 20^th April, 2011, Technician of the O.P.No.1 attended the complaint and informed that the motor of the said fan is out of order.  On 17^th May, 2011, again, Technician of the O.P.No.1 visited the complainant and replaced the faulty motor however regulator was not working properly. On 10^th June, 2011, Technician of the O.P.No.1 visited the complainant and took away the faulty fan.  On 15^th June, 2011, the O.P.No.2 supplied the new fan to the complainant.

2)                On 25^th July, 2011, at about 04.00 A.M., the complainant and his wife were sleeping.  There was heat therefore they awoke and saw that fire was coming from the fan.  The walls and ceiling became black and the furniture was damaged. Photographs are produced.  Complaint was lodged with the Service Centre of the O.P.No.1. The Technician of the O.P.No.1came at the residence of the complainant and after inspection offered replacement of fan. However, the complainant refused and claimed damages.  As the opponents failed to pay the damages, notice was issued. There was correspondence.  As the opponents failed to pay the damages, the complainant has filed this complaint for damages of Rs.75,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.  He has also claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh for mental agony and cost.

3)                The O.P.No.1 appeared and filed its written statement.  It is admitted that fan was purchased from the O.P.No.2.  It was replaced. It is submitted that the complainant purchased wall mounting fan of model ‘Spectrum SW 01-02’. ‘S’ stands for Spectrum and ‘W’ stands for Wall Mounting fan. In guarantee clause, it is clearly mentioned that guarantee does not apply to mishandling the part by the customer. The fan was replaced free of cost on 15^th June, 2011.  On 25^th July, 2011, Technician visited the residence of the complainant and observed that wall mounting fan was used as a table fan. Wall mounting fan requires to be mounted on the wall. The fan was wrongly used as a table fan.  The incident took place due to negligence of the complainant. The O.P.No.1 was not duty bound to replace the product. However, the O.P.No.1 offered replacement for its name. The complainant refused and demanded compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The notice issued by the complainant was replied. The complaint is false therefore it is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4)                The O.P.No.2 appeared and filed written statement.  Wall mounting fan was sold to the complainant. The original fan was replaced free of cost therefore this opponent is not liable for the subsequent incident. 

5)                After hearing all the parties and after going though the record, following points arise for our consideration

POINTS

REASONS

6) As to Point No.1 & 2 :- It is not disputed that the complainant purchased the fan from the O.P.No.2 and the O.P.No.1 is the Manufacturer. The complainant has produced the copy of bill showing purchase of fan and guarantee card.  It is not disputed by the opponents. On perusal of copy of bill, it is table fan.  The contents of bill are not challenged by the opponents in their written statement or affidavit of evidence.  It is specifically mentioned in the bill that it is table fan.  According to the complainant, he was told that the said fan can be used as table fan as well as wall mounting fan.  The contention of the complainant is supported by the bill issued by the O.P.No.2.  On the other hand, it is the say of the opponents that the fan was wall mounting fan. It was wrongly handled as table fan therefore it was burnt.  For that purpose, the opponents are not liable. According to the opponents, ‘S’ stands for Spectrum and ‘W’ stands for Wall Mounting.  The common consumer will not understand the meaning of ‘S’ and ‘W’.  There is nothing on record to show that the complainant was informed that it is wall mounting fan and not the table fan.  There is no display by the opponents to know the consumer that it is wall mounting fan and can not be used as table fan.  On other hand, the bill issued by the O.P.No.2 display that it is table fan.  The guarantee card also does not display that it is wall mounting fan and can not be used as table fan. Therefore, the defence taken by the opponents can not be accepted. Admittedly, first fan was defective.  Technician of the opponents visited the residence of the complainant.  As the fan was faulty it was replaced.  The opponents have not stated that earlier the fan was used as wall mounting fan and not as a table fan. 

7)                Admittedly, the fan was burnt.  The photographs produced by the complainant as well as the opponents show that furniture, wall and ceiling was damaged due to burn of fan.  The fan was burnt due to defect in fan.  Therefore, the opponents are liable to compensate the damages of the complainant.  From the photographs, it is clear that table was burnt and colour of wall was damaged.  The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.75,000/- for damages to furniture and wall and price of the fan.  We think compensation of Rs.50,000/- will be the reasonable compensation.  Besides this, the complainant is entitled for the compensation for the mental agony.  He has purchased the fan on 24^th March, 2011.  It stopped functioning on 17^th April, 2011 i.e. within one month from purchase.  It was replaced on 15^th June, 2011 i.e. after three months. Again, it was burnt on 25^th July, 2011.  The complainant suffered in summer season therefore he is entitled for the compensation.  The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lakh.  We think the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony.  Besides this, the complainant is entitled for cost of this proceeding of Rs.5,000/-.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is partly allowed.
2. The Opponents are directed to pay Rs.50,000/-(Rs.Fifty Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation for damages to the furniture, wall and price of fan with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 15^th February, 2012 till its realization.
3. The Opponents are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand Only) to the complainant as compensation for mental agony.
4. The Opponents are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand Only) to the complainant as cost of this proceeding.
5. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.
6. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced

Dated 8^th May, 2014