KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO. 904/12

JUDGMENT DATED:29.10.2014

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

SHRI.V.V JOSE                                                           : MEMBER

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.,

Regd. Office at Pirojshanagar,                          

Vikhroli, Mumbai-400 079 and                                         : APPELLANT

Having branch at 2^nd floor,

Angels Arcade, South Kalamassery,

Cochin University.P.O, Cochin-22.

R/by its Branch Commercial Manager.

(By Adv: Sri.R.Padmaraj)

            Vs.

1. Reji Joseph,

Venattu House, Kattappana.P.O,

Idukki Kavala, Idukki District.

1. P.K.Mani, Proprietor,

Kochupurackal Agencies,

Central Junction, Kattappana,

Idukki District.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

(R2 by Adv: Sri.G.K.Sudheer)

1. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section,

Office of the Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Kattappana, Kattappana.P.O,

Idukki District.

(R3 by Adv: Sri.B.Sakthidharan Nair)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the 1^st opposite party in CC.255/11 on the file of CDRF, Idukki challenging the order of the Forum dated, August 27, 2012 directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- and a cost of Rs.1000/-.

2.      The case of the complainant as testified by him as PW1 and as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

The complainant purchased a Pentacool Frost Free refrigerator made by the first opposite party, Godrej Manufacturing Company from the second opposite party on October 05, 2004 which is of 220 ltrs capacity.  On August 21, 2011 at 12.45 in the midnight the refrigerator exploded and in the ensuing fire damage was caused to the house and the electrical equipments therein.  The fire force came and put out the fire.  A complaint was given to the Police Station, Kattappana Fire force office and Electricity Board and to the 2^nd opposite party.   The technicians of the first and second opposite parties inspected the premises and came to the conclusion that explosion occurred due to the defect in the refrigerator.  Therefore complainant filed the complaint claiming compensation.

3.      The first opposite party, M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited in its version admitted the purchase of the refrigerator from their dealers second opposite party and also the incident.  They further contended that the incident occurred due to the defect in the stabilizer.

4.      The second opposite party the dealer remained absent before the Forum.  Third opposite party the Electricity Board in its version contended that there were no defects to the electrical circuit in the house and that therefore they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.

5.      On the side of the complainant, complainant was examined as PW1 and one witness PW2 and he produced Exts.P1 to P7 before the Forum.  No evidence was adduced on the side of the contesting opposite parties 1 and 3.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that the explosion occurred due to the defect in the refrigerator and that therefore there was deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2 and directed them to pay a compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- with a cost of Rs.1000/-.  First opposite party has now come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

6.      Heard the counsel appearing for the appellant and the first respondent/complainant and the respondents 2 and 3 who were opposite parties 2 and 3 before the Forum.

The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

7.      It is admitted that complainant purchased the disputed refrigerator manufactured by the first opposite party from their dealer, second opposite party on October 05, 2004.  It is also proved by Ext.P1 the user guide and warranty of the fridge it is also not disputed that on August 21, 2011 at about 12.45 pm the fridge exploded causing damage to the electrical equipments in the building and the walls of the building.  This is also proved by Ext.P2 copy of the report filed by the Station Officer, Fire and Rescue Station, Kattappana and Ext.P3 copy of site mahazer prepared by the Assistant Engineer, KSEB Electrical Section, Kattappana, Ext.P4 copy of the GD entry at the Kattappana Police Station dated, August 22, 2011, Ext.P5 copy of Malayala Manorama daily dated, August 23, 2011 and Ext.P6 series of photographs of the damages caused to the house.

8.      The fact that explosion occurred due to the defect in the refrigerator is proved by the evidence of PW2 the technician who testified that the gas used in the fridge is hydro carbon which is highly inflammable and that the spark at the time of leakage of gas caused to the explosion.  He further stated that if thermostat is not working the fridge will continuously work and will get overheated and may cause explosion and that the fire was caused at the portion of the compressor.  That apart the Ext.P3 report of the Assistant Engineer, KSEB shows that there was no complaint in the wiring of the complainant’s house.  It is clear from the above that the explosion occurred due to the defect in the refrigerator.  Thus there is clear deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 and 2.

9.      The Forum awarded a compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- for the loss caused to the electrical equipments and the building and a cost of Rs.1000/- which appears to be reasonable.

In the result we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

VL.

V.V JOSE  : MEMBER