O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is, that he purchased 160 liters capacity refrigerator manufactured by Op No.1 from Op No.2 on 03/04/2008 for Rs.10,500/-. The same was delivered to his residence on 04/04/2008. On the next date he informed the first Op who had gone to his house to demonstrate the refrigerator that the freeze express door was not properly functioning and was not locking and dynamic convection control was not working properly. The representative accepted the defects and assured that the door and dynamic convection control could be replaced but the Op did not take steps to rectify the same. That he informed the representative of the Op by name Jaykumar. Thereafter, only fridge door was replaced, however defect was noticed on next day also and was informed to the Ops. The fridge given to him has manufacturing defect and when he took up the issue with the Ops and after issue of notice, the Ops replaced the old refrigerator with a new one after 15 days after service of notice. After installation of the new refrigerator in his house, his family members were receiving electric shocks on touching electrical panels of his house. As the result, the family members could not sleep on that night. On the next day he got the electric installation verified through an electrician who found electrical connection of his house was proper and found shock in the refrigerator due to defect in it. Then power connection of the refrigerator was disconnected then found his electrical panels in the house were functioning normally without any shock. This was informed to a person of the Ops who went on the next day for the demonstration and it was also brought to the notice of Jaykumar who promised to replace the refrigerator but he has not replaced and stated under these circumstances, he has purchased another refrigerator and therefore has prayed for a direction to Ops to repay the cost of the refrigerator with interest and to award compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.<br /> <br /> 2. Op No.2 has not contested the complaint. Op No.1 has appeared through this advocate and filed version contending that complainant has not made any allegations of the deficiency against them. However, has admitted purchase of refrigerator by the complainant through Op No.2 which was manufactured by them. That the refrigerator as a warranty of 5 years denied that there was any defect in the refrigerator which was supplied to the complainant at the first instance. It is alleged that the complainant is of higher demanding in nature with unreasonable demands. However, stated that the complainant was not using the refrigerator supplied at the first instance as per user guide. However as a special case and to retain good will they agreed to replace the refrigerator and replaced the earlier refrigerator with a new one on 23/07/2008. The replaced refrigerator was installed satisfactorily and was cross checked by the service team and was functioning in an excellent manner. Despite that the complainant called on them informing defect in the replaced refrigerator, that they sent a technician to check the installation who found some defect in the electric supply of the refrigerator and that refrigerator had suffered damage on account of the faulty electric supply but complainant did not allow his technician to repair refrigerator which had suffered damage on account of faulty electric supply. Despite several efforts, the complainant did not allow the service team to attend the defect in the refrigerator and therefore denying other allegations has submitted for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Solomon for Op No.1 have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has got affidavit evidence of an electrician by name Srinivas and the first Op got filed an affidavit evidence of Dy. Manager. The complainant and his witness are subjected to cross examination by the counsel for Op No.1. The complainant has produced Xerox copies of tax invoice in proof of purchase of the refrigerator with another article, copy of legal notice he got issued to the Ops with a copy of user guide. Op No.1 has produced copy of warranty card and copy of installation report. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service by supplying a defective refrigerator and by not refunding its cost.<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Answer on point No.1: The complainant in the complaint has referred to supply of two refrigerators by the Ops, one was purchased by him on 03/04/2008 for Rs.10,400/- on his complaint of some defect in the refrigerator, Ops admitted to have replaced the first one with a new one and that new one was installed in the house of the complainant on 23/07/2008. Though there is some dispute between the parties with regard to alleged defect in the first refrigerator but we are not required to go to that aspect are that issue is not before us in this complaint. Thus the allegations of the complainant that the second refrigerator installed in his house on 23/07/2008 was also defective and was giving electric shock has to be considered in the light of the rival contentions of the parties.<br /> <br /> 8. The complainant in the complaint has not given the date of supply and installation of second refrigerator in his house, however he has stated that new refrigerator was installed in his house after 15 days after service of the notice and on such installation of the new refrigerator his family members suffered electric shocks. In the affidavit evidence filed by him also he has stated that after installation of the second refrigerator his family members suffered electric shocks. With this, it is clear that the second refrigerator was installed by the Ops in the house of the complainant. The first Op in the version and also in the affidavit evidence filed has stated that the replaced refrigerator was installed satisfactorily and cross checked by their service team and it was functioning in an excellent manner. This fact spoken to by Op has not been denied by the complainant in his affidavit evidence. It is stated that refrigerator installed was giving electrical shocks. The complainant further in the complaint and in the affidavit evidence has stated as if this electric shocks received through the refrigerator was brought to the notice of a persons of the Op when they went for demonstration on the next day and further stated as it was informed to one Jaykumar, the executive of the first Op. As against this allegation of the complainant Op has stated that despite the refrigerator was functioning effectively on installation they received a complaint of the complainant about the defect in the refrigerator and stated that a technician was sent for check up who found that because of the defective electrical supply to the refrigerator, the refrigerator had suffered damage and stated it was because of faulty electrical supply. But the complainant started telling that the refrigerator was defective and he did not allow the first Op technician to repair the refrigerator. Here again the complainant has not denied the statement of first Op that when they tried to set right the defect in the refrigerator which occurred due to electrical supply, the complainant did not allow the technician to do. Thus it is clear that the complainant did not either made efforts by himself to ascertain the cause for electric shock or the defect that had occurred in the refrigerator or allowed the first Op technician to repair the refrigerator. Under these circumstances, it is for the complainant to prove that there had been any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator and that electrical shock they had suffered was due to that defect in the refrigerator. Admittedly, the complainant has not got checked the refrigerator through any expert or even by at least an electrician to prove that the defect in the refrigerator was the cause for electric shock and that defect occurred in the refrigerator was of the manufacturing defect.<br /> <br /> 9. The complainant in support of his allegations that due to defect in the refrigerator his family members received electric shock in the house got an affidavit evidence of an electrician by name Srinivas filed. This witness in his affidavit evidence stated that he is an electrician by profession, on the complaint of the complainant he examined the electrical lines of the complainant’s house and found that all electrical panels were not having any fault, earthing was also correct then he disconnected the power supply to the refrigerator and he found no electric shocks were received and again he connected the refrigerator with power supply and he again found that refrigerator was giving shock, then he realized that there is defect in the refrigerator and found no defect in the electrical panels. It is further stated by the witness, on the following date a representative of the first Op also went and informed them that there is a problem in the compression of the refrigerator. This witness is subjected to cross examination by the counsel for the first Op, the witness in the cross examination admitted to had not given the date of checking the installation but stated that after installing the Samsung Refrigerator on 26/07/2008 he found there was electric shock in the refrigerator and taps. Here the witness has referred to Samsung Refrigerator but one supplied by the first Op was a Godrej Refrigerator. The complainant in the complaint and affidavit evidence has stated that after installation of the replaced refrigerator his family members suffered electric shock and spent entire night without sleep and had to switch off the main connection and stated on the next day morning he got the installation verified by an electrician who is none other than his witness Srinivas. The complainant has not disputed that new refrigerator was installed in his house on 23/07/2008. If on that day, the members of the complainant family had suffered electric shock then the witness Srinivas an electrician was summoned by the complainant for check up on the next day, this witness Srinivas who had checked the electric installation and alleged shock in the house of the complainant on 24/07/2008. But this witness in the cross examination has stated as if he found electric shock from the refrigerator on 26/07/2008 which runs contrary to the claim of the complainant. In the cross examination, the counsel for the first Op though not elicited any contradiction but an admission made by this witness Srinivas throw doubt on the complaint with regard to the alleged defect in the refrigerator. The complainant in the cross examination has stated after installation of the fridge in his house he has not used it and stated as his witness told him that shocks are received from the refrigerator, therefore, he is also telling on it or because his witness told that electric shocks are due to the defect in the refrigerator he is also repeating the same. This admission of the complainant proves that the complainant neither has any personal knowledge about cause for electric shock nor he had any opinion of expert who gave the opinion after checking the refrigerator. With this admission of the complainant now we shall examine the evidence of his witness Srinivas elicited in the cross examination to know whether he had any occasion, opportunity to examine the refrigerator to say that shocks were due to defect in the refrigerator. The complainant’s witness Srinivas in the cross examination has categorically stated that he did not check the refrigerator to know whether there was problem in it. When this witness Srinivas did not check the refrigerator to know whether there is problem in it, then he cannot say that electric shocks was due to defect in the refrigerator. When this witness of the complainant himself is not in a position to give his opinion then complainant cannot rely upon the statement of such a witness and say that the electric shocks were due to defect in the refrigerator. Hence, the evidence of the complainant and his witness in this regard cannot be believed.<br /> <br /> 10. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, on 04/08/2009 the complainant reported that there is grounding problem in the refrigerator supplied to him and therefore, it is a defective item. The counsel for the Op disputed such statement of the complainant and submitted there is no such grounding problem in the Refrigerator and there was earthing problem in the house of the complainant for which they are not responsible. Then the counsel for the Op was instructed to send a technician to the house of the complainant to find out whether the defect is in the refrigerator or in the power supply with an instruction to the complainant to allow the technician of the Op to inspect the system and to set it right. After inspection the counsel for the Op submitted a job card stating that there is no earthing problem but did not submit any report regarding the defect if any in the Refrigerator. But the technician did not submit any report with regard to the defect in the Refrigerator and in that regard on the request of the counsel for the Op time was extended to submit a report regarding defect if any in the Refrigerator by 11/08/2010. Then the Dy. Manager of the Op filed his affidavit stating to had visited the complainant’s place with a technical trainer on 05/08/2009 and found that as per the basic electric connection, the phase connection should be on the right side of the power plug point but they found phase connection was on left side power plug point due to this, phase was not getting control by ON/OFF switch and current is continuously passing through the appliance. After switching off the appliance earthing has been corrected, found Refrigerator compressor ground due to improper in put power side. Then in pursuance to last hearing date order of the forum he again visited the complainant’s place on 09/08/09 at 3.00 PM but the complainant did not permit them to further investigate in the matter. The complainant has not controverted this fact sworn to by the person of Op No.1 in this affidavit. This forum by its order dated 06/08/2009 directed the counsel for the Op to send his technician to inspect the Refrigerator and to submit further report by 11/08. As per the affidavit evidence of the Deputy Manager of the first Op when he went to visit the house of the complainant in obedience of the order of this forum on 09/08/2001 at 3.00 pm the complainant’s did not permit the technician to inspect the installation and thereby complainant’s men caused obstruction for discharging the function as entrusted by this forum. Complainant in the cross examination has admitted that on 09/08/2009 when the technician of the first Op went near his house for further inspection, his son and himself did not allow them to inspect to enable them to submit their report and this complainant has further admitted that his son is an Advocate by profession. This conduct of the complainant who is an ex -employee in the Judicial service and his son, an advocate by profession knowing the consequences of the obstruction to a person who went near their premises to discharge the function as entrusted by this forum has caused obstruction as the result report regarding the condition of the fridge could not be secured.<br /> <br /> 11. On going through the entire materials placed before us, we are of the view that the complainant who alleged manufacturing defect in the refrigerator that had led to electric shock is required to prove it by expert evidence or with convincing evidence has not proved. As such the allegations of manufacturing defect in the refrigerator is not proved. The complainant in our view has failed to discharge the burden casted on him. As the result, we answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 30/08/2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />