DATE OF FILING : 20.12.2011

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27^th day of August, 2012

Present :

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT

SMT. BINDU SOMAN MEMBER

SMT. LIZAMMA ABRAHAM. K. MEMBER

CC NO.255/2011

Between

Complainant : Reji Joseph,

Venattu House,

Kattappana P.O.,

Idukki Kavala, Idukki District.

(By Adv: Sijimon. K. Augustine)

And

Opposite Parties :1. Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.,

Appliance Division, Registered Office,

Pirojshanagar, Vikhroli,

Mumbai – 400 079.

(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)

2. P.K. Mani, Proprietor,

Kochupurackal Agencies,

Central Junction, Kattappana,

Idukki District.

3. The Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Section,

Office of the Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Kattappana, Kattappana P.O.,

Idukki District.

(By Adv: Jose Thomas)

O R D E R

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

The complainant purchased a Pentacool Frost Free refrigerator made by Godrej manufacturing company from the 2^nd opposite party on 5.10.2004 which is of 220 ltrs. capacity. The said refrigerator is full automatic and self draining one. That was duly electrified and kept in the dining room of the complainant’s residence with a stabilizer of a branded company. There is no default for the electrification in the house since ELCB, isolator MCB were also connected to the electric wiring and the building is only having 2 years of old. Unfortunately, on 21.8.2011 at about 12.45 in the midnight, a huge sound has been heard from the part of the refrigerator and a

(cont....2)

- 2 -

burst has been happened, the room was fully filled with fire and smoke. The complainant and his family who were sleeping terribly threatened and they cannot come outside the bed room and so that they called the police and also the neighbours. The police and the neighbours came over there and they quickly unlocken the front door of the house and rescue operations were done, so that the complainant and his family were saved their lives. The fire force immediately approached there, sprayed water for seizing the fire. The refrigerator of the complainant was completely burned and destroyed and the other electrical equipments such as Home theatre, DVD Player, T.V., V-Guard Stabilizer were also completely damaged due to the same. Certain floor tiles of the dining room and drawing room also caused damaged due to the same. The doors and windows of the room in which the refrigerator was kept and the adjacent room were also damaged due to fire, heat and smoke. A complaint was duly given to the police station, Kattappana, Fire Force office, Electricity Board and to the shop from where the refrigerator has been purchased. A mahazar has been prepared by the authorities and investigation was also done by them. But nothing was done by them for getting compensation to the complainant. The technicians of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties approached there and detailed investigation were done and came to a conclusion that the ’thermostat’ of the refrigerator was not working automatically and so that it became heat and fire occurred there. As per the inspection of the 3^rd opposite party, it is revealed that there is no defect to the electrical energy meter, fuse and other wiring of the complainant’s residence. There was no natural calamities like wind, thunder, lightning etc. on 21.8.2011, on which the accident was occurred. An approximate loss of Rs.3.5 lakhs was estimated to the complainant’s residence. The cause for the accident was due to the manufacturing defect of the refrigerator and also due to the improper service of the opposite parties. So the opposite parties are liable for compensating the complainant and so the petition is filed for getting the loss and compensation.

2. As per the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party, it is admitted by them that the complainant purchased a machine GEP 220S ZOP from their dealer 2^nd opposite party at Kattappana, 5 years back. But the complainant never registered or reported any complaint either to the dealer or to this opposite party before the accident about the refrigerator. It means that the machine was working properly for the last 5 years. The accident was reported by the complainant on 22.8.2011. Immediately after the intimation, the authorised service provider directly visited the place and checked the machine. On his examination, it is assessed that the defect might have occurred from the stabilizer. The door of the refrigerator was almost intact. Other parts of the machine seems fully burnt. If it was a complaint due to any part of the fridge, that part could have localized burn. But in this case fridge was completely burnt, but door was intact. The stabilizer winding could have burnt, thus through refrigerator top side the fire entered and the entire refrigerator could have been burnt. The opposite parties’ technicians never stated after the examination that

(cont....3)

- 3 -

the accident was caused due to the non performance of the ’thermostat’. No such technician had visited the place other than the 2^nd opposite party. So the petition is not at all sustainable.

3. The 3^rd opposite party filed written version stating that after incident an inspection has been conducted by the 3^rd opposite party and it was revealed that the wiring and connection done by the complainant in order to install the refrigerator is perfect and there was no defect regarding the wiring towards the instrument. They are not aware of the explosion, fire, smoke etc. or the complainant’s information to the police or fire force or the rest of the incident happened there. The complainant had given a petition before the 3^rd opposite party and the 3^rd opposite party and staff inspected the premises on 22.8.2011. It was found that the energy meter through which the electric connection was given to the house of the complainant is not having any damage and also the wiring circuit of the premises is in perfect condition. This itself shows that the fire or explosion happened in the house of the complainant is not due to any fault of the 3^rd opposite party KSEB. It is also admitted by the complainant himself that there is no deficiency from the part of the 3^rd opposite party. There was no weather variation or natural calamities happened on that day. So this opposite party is not at all liable for compensating the complainant and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. The 2^nd opposite party was duly served with notice, but was absent and set exparte.

5. The point for considerations are that 1. Whether there was an explosion caused in the residence of the complainant from the refrigerator, if so, what is the reason for the same and who is liable for the same ? 2. Whether there is any deficiency from the part of the opposite parties, if so, what compensation can be awarded ?

6. POINT No.1 :- The complainant produced evidence as PW1. PW1 deposed that on 21.8.2011 at about 12.45 pm while the complainant and family were sleeping on the bed room, a huge blasting sound has been heard from the room of the fridge and suddenly fire has been filled in the room where the refrigerator has been kept and fumes also filled in the room. The complainant and family terribly frightened and so that they were not able to come out of the room. Suddenly they informed the police and neighbouring people through telephone, the police and the neighbours broken the door and fire force had set off the fire by spraying water. The police and neighbouring people saved the life of the complainant from the room. A report has been filed by the station officer, fire and rescue station, Kattappana stating that on 21.8.2011, in early morning at 12.55, a telephone call was made by Reji Joseph to their office and they have immediately arrived there and it was found that

(cont....4)

- 4 -

fire has been occurred in the room in which the refrigerator was kept. The doors, windows and fridge were partially burned due to the same. A report has been prepared by them and it is marked as Ext.P2. So it is absolutely clear from the Ext.P2 document and the version of the PW1 is that a fire accident has been occurred there from the refrigerator in the complainant’s residence in the room in which the refrigerator was kept and the only dispute is that what is the reason for the same. Ext.P5 is the copy of the Malayala Manorama daily dated 23^rd August, 2011 in which the photograph and a news regarding the fire accident caused to the house of the complainant.

As per the Ext.P2 report, the suspected reason for the occurrence of the fire is short circuit. It is also reported that the information is only in respect of the data furnished to the department, not necessarily be full and accurate on any matter contained there in which can be determined only after due investigation by the appropriate agency. Ext.P3 is the site mahazar prepared by the Assistant Engineer, who visited there and it is stated that the premises of the complainant’s residence was inspected by them. Due to the explosion of refrigerator, the tiles of the front room were also broken, walls were became dark, but there is nothing happened to the electrical meter, fuse or main switch or other electrical wires of the complainant’s residence. So it conceives that the fire has been occurred not due to any defect on the electrification.

As per PW1, while the fire accident was caused, they informed the matter to the opposite parties and the technician of the 1^st opposite party arrived and a detailed investigation has been done on the fridge and it is stated that the fire may have occurred due to the complaint of the heater of the defroster or due to over heating or due to non-functioning of the thermostat. It is also stated that there is no complaint to the electrical meter, fuse and main switch and wiring of the building.

PW2 who is a technician appeared and deposed that he is having 12 years experience in refrigerator servicing and he was working at 1^st opposite party company for 8 years. He deposed that Ext.P1 which is the user guide and warranty produced by the complainant for the purchase of the refrigerator shows that it is fully automatic refrigerator and the gas used in it is Hydro Carbon and it is highly inflammable. The spark at the time of leakage of gas caused the explosion. It may be caused at the time of defrosting. If the thermostat is not working, the fridge will continuously work and it will became overheat. The coupling joint is used by the company and there would have gas leaking in the coupling joint. The fire was caused in the portion of the compressor. The police and fire force were present when the technician inspected the premises of the complainant. So it is clear from the version of the PW1 and PW2 that the fire has been caused from the refrigerator and not from any other electrical equipments kept in the residence of the complainant or never from the shortage of

(cont.....5)

- 5 -

the electrification. Ext.P3 report of the Assistant Engineer also shows that there is no complaint to the wiring of the complainant’s residence. So the only dispute raised by the opposite party is that it can be caused due to the defect of the stabilizer. But no evidence has been adduced by the opposite party to substantiate the same. So we are in a conclusion that the fire has been caused due to defect from the refrigerator of the complainant and it may be due to any manufacturing defect of the refrigerator. PW1 himself deposed that there was a defect to the refrigerator after one year of the purchase and the complaint was it becomes overheat and the matter was reported to the authorised service centre, they have inspected the same and told that there was no complaint to the refrigerator. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties never produced any evidence to show that it was caused not because of the defect of the refrigerator. So we think that it may be because of any manufacturing defect of the refrigerator.

POINT No.2:- A report has been produced by the complainant stating the detailed estimate of the destruction caused in which the total amount is Rs.3,01,745/-. Assessment done for the destruction caused to the tiles, flooring, one window, door, rewiring, refixing plumbing, showcase and to the electrical appliances etc.. As per Ext.P4 report, a GD Entry made in Kattappana Police Station that the incident was caused at 12.45 on 21.8.2011 night and damage has been caused to the fridge, home theatre, DVD Player, T.V., V-Guard stabilizer and land phone and they were completely burned due to the same. The wall of the complainant’s residence also caused damage due to the same. Door frames of one bed room of the complainant’s residence has been completely burned, 4 window, doors were also affected by the same, tiles in the room were caused damages and an estimate of about Rs.3 lakhs has been mentioned as loss caused due to the fire. As per Ext.P5 report in Malayala Manorama daily dated 23.8.2011, it is stated that an average loss of Rs.2 lakhs has been estimated in the incident. The complainant also produced photographs of the burned fridge, destruction to the tiles, burning caused to the walls, door frames, windows, electrical appliances etc. which are marked as Ext.P6(series).

Eventhough it is stated in Ext.P7 that an amount of Rs.3,01,745/- has been estimated. An amount of Rs.2,865/- has been estimated as the cost for the destruction of the tiles and the maintenance work of plastering for walls and ceilings has been estimated Rs.21,250/-. But we think that the complete walls were not at all destroyed, but they have affected with the colour of the smoke and the walls are not at all damaged. So the amount is an exaggerated one. The replacing of window with door, one number is estimated as Rs.7,000/- and it may be true that one window and door completely damaged and Rs.7,000/- is a reasonable amount for the same. The replacing window shutter is calculated as Rs.18,530/-, but we think that window shutter has not mentioned by the police or in the complaint. Rewiring work in the building is estimated as Rs.28,000/-. But as per the police report and that of 3^rd opposite party, nothing has been caused to the wiring or fuse or main switch of the

(cont....6)

- 6 -

building and it is not at all accountable. Refixing plumbing items is estimated as Rs.25,000/- and it is not at all mentioned in the police report or in the complaint itself, showcase and decorative items are not at all mentioned in the police report or in the complaint itself. The damages to the appliances such as T.V., an amount of Rs.20,000/- has been calculated for the same, but no bill or photograph has been produced by the complainant to show that what type of T.V. has been damaged. No bill for the purchase of the same has been produced by the complainant in anywhere else to substantiate the same. So Rs.10,000/- can be calculated for the same. Emergency Lamp worth Rs.5,000/-, ceiling fan Rs.3,000/-, DVD Player, Home Theatre Rs.15,000/-, mixer grinder Rs.5,000/-, pots, plates, glass wares etc. worth Rs.5,000/-, wooden chairs – 3 numbers for Rs.7,500/-, one setty Rs.25,000/-, dewan cot Rs.10,000/-, bed, blankets, pillows etc. Rs.22,000/-, wall photos, paintings etc. Rs.10,000/- and the total amount calculated for the same is nearly Rs.1,25,000/-. Painting work with emelsion paint inside of rooms Rs.52,500/-, polishing works for doors and windows is calculated as Rs.20,000/- in the estimate produced by the complainant which is an exaggerated amount. No evidence produced for substantiating the same. No commission report or photograph produced for the same.

So we fix an amount of Rs.10,000/- for the T.V., Rs.12,000/- for the Fridge, Rs.25,000/- for the furniture and other electrical equipments as reported by the police and Rs.30,000/- can be calculated as compensation for the painting and other works caused to the wall of the complainant’s residence. Rs.3,000/- can be calculated for the loss caused to the tiles and other flooring of the complainant’s residence. So a total of Rs.80,000/- can be calculated. It is absolutely clear that mental agony had been caused to the complainant and his family in the night because of the explosion caused, they were sleeping with children in the room at the midnight. The explosion caused fear to the life of his family members and Rs.25,000/- can be fixed as compensation for the mental agony caused to them. So a total compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- can be awarded to the complainant. The 1^st opposite party who is the manufacturer of the refrigerator is liable to compensate the complainant for the explosion caused due to the manufacturing defect of the refrigerator. The 2^nd opposite party is the dealer of the 1^st opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party ought to have made arrangements to get the compensation to the complainant and ought to have visited the residence of the complainant and enquired about the incident, but it was not done by the opposite party and the 2^nd opposite party is also liable for compensating the complainant. We find deficiency from the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties who denied the compensation for the loss caused to the complainant, due to the explosion caused because of the manufacturing defect of the refrigerator sold out by the 2^nd opposite party, manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. No deficiency has been proved against the 3^rd opposite party.

(cont....7)

- 7 -

Hence the petition allowed. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,05,000/- as compensation for the loss caused to the complainant and also pay Rs.1000/- as cost of this petition, to the complainant, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27^th day of August, 2012

Sd/-

SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN (PRESIDENT)

Sd/-

SMT. BINDU SOMAN (MEMBER)

Sd/-

SMT. LIZAMMA ABRAHAM. K. (MEMBER)

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - Reji Joseph.

PW2 - Benadict Chackochan.

On the side of the Opposite Parties :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - The user guide and warranty of the fridge.

Ext.P2 - Copy of the report filed by the Station Officer, Fire and Rescue

Station, Kattappana.

Ext.P3 - Copy of the site mahazar prepared by the Asst. Engineer, KSEB,

Electrical Section, Kattappana.

Ext.P4 - Copy of the GD entry of Kattappan Police Station on 22.8.2011.

Ext.P5 - Copy of Malayala Manorama Daily dated 23.8.2011 in which

there is a report regarding the accident.

Ext.P6(series) - Photographs of damages caused in the house – 9 Nos.

Ext.P7 - Estimate prepared for the destruction caused in the residence.

On the side of the Opposite Parties :

Nil.