Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak.

                                                                    Complaint No. : 55.

                                                                    Instituted on     : 23.01.2017.

                                                                    Decided on       : 16.04.2019.

Ramesh Bamel son of Sh. Ghasi Ram, age 58 years, R/o H.No.547, Sector-14, Rohtak.

                                                                   ………..Complainant.

                             Vs.

1. Godrej Industries Ltd., Pirojsha Nagar, Eastern Express Highway Vikhroli, Mumbai through its Managing Director.

3. “Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and its registered office is at Godrej Bhawan, Sher Shah Suri Marg, Okhla, New Delhi-110065 through its Managing Director.

……….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:  SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.

                   SH. VED PAL, MEMBER.

                   DR. RENU CHAUDHARY, MEMBER.

Present:       Sh. M.K. Munjal, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Lalit Nayyar and Sh. Kamal Gagneja, Advocates for

                   opposite parties No. 2 and 3.

                   Opposite party No. 1 already exparte.

                                      ORDER

NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:

1.                          Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a Godrej Split A.C., 1.5 Ton 18 FG5 (5 Star) alongwith other equipments i.e. Godrej MWO GMX 30 CA stabilizer and starter kit from the opposite party No. 2 for Rs.48,641/- vide bill dated 09.04.2016 and opposite parties No. 1 and 3 are the manufacturer of the said AC. It is alleged that on 20.09.2016, the brother in law of the complainant started the AC and light and after some time, there was a big short circuit from the AC and due to major manufacturing defect in the AC, the same was completely burnt and house of complainant caught fire. The brother-in- law of the complainant informed the fire brigade. That all the valuable articles lying in the house i.e. AC, costly furniture, clothes, marriage album, personal documents, Ex-serviceman Card and other items were burnt. The house of complainant was completely damaged. It is further alleged that complainant has suffered loss of about Rs.8,00,000/- due to short circuit in the AC and then fire because of manufacturing defect in the said AC. It is further alleged that complainant requested the opposite parties to make the payment of amount of claim, but the opposite parties have been avoiding the same on the one pretext or the other. A legal notice dated 29.11.2016 was also sent to the opposite parties regarding the same, but all in vain. That the act of opposite parties is illegal and there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. As such, it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay Rs. 8,00,000/- alongwith interest thereon @ 18% per annum and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- as harassment and litigation expenses as explained in relief clause.

2.                          After registration of complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite party No. 1 in its reply submitted that the opposite party No. 1 is not the business or manufacturer of any consumer appliances or air conditioners at all. The opposite party No. 1 I.E. Godrej Industries Limited is into the business of manufacturing a wide range of oleo-chemical products derived from organic materials. As the opposite party is not into the business of manufacturing and/or marketing air conditioners which is the product in question or any similar products, the complaint against this respondent fails and should be dismissed with exemplary costs.  It is prayed that complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs qua the opposite party No. 1. That on 08.03.2019, none has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 1, hence, opposite party No. 1 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 08.03.2019 passed by this Forum.

3.                          Opposite party No. 2 in its reply submitted that the complainant has purchased a good quality AC which was not having any kind of defect, but the complainant had not purchased stabilizer of Godrej brand. The stabilizer/power control unit installed by the complainant with the said AC is of V-Guard Brand and the same is not as per specification required by said AC. It is wrong to allege that complainant suffered loss of Rs.800000/-due to short circuit in the A.C. It is submitted that fire can occur due to defective/lower quality of wiring/improper installation of wiring in the house or due to use of inferior quality of switches/Mcb’s or defective connection of electricity wiring or due to over load or due to excessive heavy electric supply by the electricity board. That there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 2 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost qua the opposite party No. 2.

4.                          Opposite party No. 3 in its reply submitted that the complainant has purchased a good quality AC which was not having any kind of defect, but the complainant had not purchased stabilizer of Godrej brand. That there was no big short circuit from the Godrej AC due to any manufacturing defect in the AC as alleged. That the stabilizer/power control unit installed by the complainant with the said AC is of V-Guard Brand and the same is not as per specification required by said AC. That no fire occurred due to any fault of Godrej A.C. All the other contents of the complaint were stated to be wrong and denied and opposite party No. 3 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.

5.                          Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavits Ex.CW1/A and Ex.CW1/B, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C40 and has closed his evidence. Ld. counsel for the opposite party No.2 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW2/A, documents Ex.R2/1 to Ex.R2/2 and closed his evidence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 3 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW3/A and documents Ex.R3/1 to Ex.R3/4 and closed his evidence.     

6.                          We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material aspects of the case very carefully.

7.                          As per the complainant, he purchased an A.C. from the opposite parties and due to the short circuit occurred in alleged A.C, the fire broke out in his house and he suffered loss of Rs.800000/-. Complainant requested the opposite parties to compensate him but the same was refused by the opposite parties on the ground that fire can occur due to defective/lower quality of wiring/improper installation of wiring in the house or due to use of inferior quality of switches/Mcb’s or defective connection of electricity wiring or due to over load or due to excessive heavy electric supply by the electricity board.

8.                          After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per copy of email made by the complainant placed on record as Ex.C3, it is submitted that on 20.09.2016 at about 2030Hrs., smoke started coming out from AC unit(Inside Fan Unit) and suddenly broke into major fire. As per eye witness, neighbor, Fire Brigade and newspaper, the short circuit occurred in AC and the complainant requested the opposite party for replacement of AC. But the same was refused by the opposite parties. As per copy of DD report Ex.C5, the house of the complainant caught fire due to short circuit in the A.C. As per copy of inspection report of house of complainant made by Sh. Suraj Kumar Grewal, Senior Electrical Engineer, it is submitted that : “All electrical wiring, fittings  and points  were having good insulation and found no sign of short circuiting. Air-con Indoor unit inspected and found the Fan coil windings shorting and showing Zero insulation which has become the root cause of fire in house.  Hence from the alleged report, it is proved that the fire had taken place in the house of complainant due to defect in the A.C. Hence the complainant is entitled for the compensation from the opposite parties. To prove the loss, complainant has placed on record copy of bill of AC, photographs, copy of bills of album of marriage, copies of bills of clothes etc. It is also observed that as per report Ex.C40 placed on record by the complainant the Valuer & Architect  has assessed the loss of rupees two lacs.  

9.                          In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party no.3 to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.200000/-(Rupees two lacs only) on account of loss of valuable articles of the complainant including the cost of A.C. as well as cost of litigation and the compensation for the harassment caused by the opposite parties to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite party No.3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order.

10.                       Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court:

16.04.2019.

                                                          ................................................

                                                          Nagender Singh Kadian, President

                                                          ..........................................

                                                          Ved Pal Hooda, Member.

                                                                        ……………………………….

                                                                        Renu Chaudhary, Member.