Haryana

Ambala

CC/353/2015

Harjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Carrier Midea India Pvt Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sadhu Singh

02 Nov 2017

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

                                                        Complaint No. 353 of  2015

                                                        Date of instt:   15.12.2015

                                                        Date of decision:02.11.2017

 

        Harjit Singh sarao S/o Sh. Shamsher Singh R/o H.No.549, Sector-8, HUDA, Ambala City.

                                                                           ...Complainant.

Versus

1.       Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltrd. 1^st floor, Pearls tower, Plot No.51, Sector-32,     Gurgaon, (HR), through its Branch Manager.

2.       Branch Manager, Carrier Midea India Pvt. Ltd SCO 264, (2^nd floor) Sector        35-D, Chandigarh.

3.       M/s Saugat, 93 Prem Nagar, OPP, Cheema Palace, Ambala City, through its           prop/owner.

                                                   

                                                                         …Opposite party.

Complaint under section 12 of

 

BEFORE:  SH. DINA NATH ARORA, PRESIDENT.  

                SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER                   

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:-   Sh. Sadhu Singh, counsel for complainant.

                Sh. R.K. Vig, counsel for OP No.1.

                OPs No.2 and 3 already exparte.

 

Order:-

 

                In Nutshell, the facts of the complainant are that the complainant has purchased 5 star split AC under the brand name Carrier midea for his domestic use from OP No.3 vide bill No.755 dated 14.05.2015 and the said AC was got installed by OP No.3 in the above said premises of complainant by technical person of OP No.1 and 2. Further submitted that after two months of its installation, indoor unit of said AC started giving problem in its working, so OP No.3 was intimated by complainant about the said defect, on which he sent a technician from the company mentioning in to be expert from OP No.1 & 2 who after checking the same declared it to be fault less and the said communication was accepted to be correct by the complainant, he being a non technical person. Further submitted that after a month or so AC started giving some problems which was again brought to the knowledge of OP No.3 as earlier, so again a technician of OP No.1 and 2 again visited the premises of the complainant and declared the same to be alright, without any defect. However, OP NO.3 promised the complainant that in case there is any problem, he will get the AC replaced with new one from the company and this representation of OP No.3 was believed to be correct and genuine by the complainant. However, in the mean time winter season came in. But the problem was not got rectified as promised by OPs and ultimately the said AC got burst into flames on 14.07.2015 during night resulting into fire in room with heavy loss of house hold articles and damage to building of complainant. Due to this fire incident, the fire was so much huge that Fire Brigade was called to control the same. However, except loss/damage to property-house hold goods there was no loss of life, but it caused great mental agony and pain to complainant alongwith his family members which was been caused on account of deficiency in service, including unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and the OPs had failed to provide proper service including replacement of AC, despite of repeated requests of complainant.

2.             Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and contested the present complaint by filing his reply, however, OP No.2 and 3 did not appeared before the Forum and they were proceeded against exparte v.o.d. 28.01.2016. Counsel for OP No.1 in his written statement submitted that on 18.07.2015 fire took place at the resident of the complainant where the subject Unit was installed and there was an inordinate delay of 4 days by the complainant in reporting the fire incident to the OP No.1.  The more important fact is that before the representatives of the OP No.1 could visit the complainant’s house, the complainant had deliberately white washed and cleaned the entire room to hide the actual cause of fire from the OP No.1. Further submitted that prior to white washing the room, changing of electrical wiring and dismantling of the burnt electronic items from the room, the complaint did not get the site assessed by an expert to prove that the cause of fire was the subject unit and all items in the room like the indoor unit of the subject unit, lights, fan, bed, curtain, cupboard, doors etc was damaged by fire. Therefore, it is wrong on the part of the complainant to allege that the fire was caused due to default in the subject unit. Further submitted that on 18.07.2015, the OP had not received a single complaint from the complainant regarding the subject unit, therefore, it is evidence that the subject unit had functioned absolutely fine for more than 1 year from the date of purchase. Further submitted that if the fire was actually due to the manufacturing defect in the subject unit, then the fire would have happened immediately after the installation of the subject unit and during the inspection of the fire site by the OP No.1 on 18.07.2015, the son of the complainant had himself confirmed that the subject unit was serviced by unauthorized third parties few weeks prior to the fire when the interconnecting wire between the MCB and the subject unit was replaced. In view of the information which has been provided by the user of the subject unit, it is submitted that there is every possibility that the fire might have been caused owing to improper wiring done by such unauthorized third party. It is submitted that the fact stated by the son of the complainant was recorded by the OP No.1 in the Field Failure cum Service Report dated 18.07.2015 which was duly signed by the complainant’s son and OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X alongwith documents as annexure C-1 to C-14 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs also tendered an affidavit as Annexure R-X alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings.

5.             Undisputedly, the AC got burst into flame on 14.07.2015 during the night resulting into fire in the room and the complainant intimated the fire bridge which reached at the spot and got extinguished the fire but during this process some articles lying in the house complainant got damaged and loss to the building has also occurred as alleged by the complainant. The fire brigade also made entry in their Roznamcha  and the same has been placed on the file as Annexure C3. Perusal of this very document reveals that the reason for broking out of the fire was Short Circuit and due to this reason the AC and ply of the beds got damaged and the cost there of was Rs.1,10,000/- (Rs.50,000/- for AC, Rs.30,000/- for bed and Rs.10,000/-) as reported in Annexure C3.

                In the present complaint the complainant has submitted that the short circuit has occurred due to fault in the inner unit of Air Conditioner and in this regard he has placed report of another mechanic Annexure C4 on the case file. Perusal of the above said Mechanic Report, it is clear that the report of the Mechanic is a simple paper in which it has not been mentioned about any qualification of the trade of Mechanic nor supported by any affidavit. So, the above said report has no value in the terms as an expert report.

        On the other hand, counsel for OPs has also placed on record copy of the Inspection Report dated 18.07.2015 (Annexure R-2) which is as under:

                “Visited the customer & found unit burnt. As per customer units got burnt on 14.07.2015 at 9:30p.m. & when fire broke out unit was working & customer lodged complaint on 18.07.2015 evening. As per customer, AC was out of warranty and service was done by Hitachi people around 2 months earlier. The interconnecting wire between MCB & AC has been replaced by customer. MCB is 32 A.M. of Havels make. Indoor unit is completely burnt & outdoor unit is ok. Main power supply, MCB, outdoor unit is ok”.

                Counsel for the complainant has neither rebutted the report of the Ops (Annexure R-2) nor has given any authenticated expert report.  Perusal of the case file further reveals that there is nothing on the file to show that the complainant has ever lodged any complaint regarding defect in the AC to the Electricity Department because the complainant has relied upon the report of Fire Brigade from which it is clear that the loss has occurred due to short circuit but it was the duty of the complainant either to brought the facts regarding loss into the notice of electricity department and further to make the same as party to present complaint.

                        Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case we reach at conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and reliable evidence, therefore, present complaint stands dismissed leaving the parties to bearing their own costs. Copies of order be sent to the parties concerned under the Rule. File be consigned to record room after duel compliance.

Announced on: 02.11.2017                                  (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                       President

 

    

   (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                         Member

 

 

          (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                         Member