BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No.596 of 2013

Date of Institution: 29.08.2013

Date of Decision: 14.10.2015 

Sita Ram Chaudhary son of Sh.Neki Ram Chaudhary,  resident of H.No.7, Green Villa, Loharka Road, Amritsar.

Complainant

Versus

1. International Electronics Agency, Branch Office 49, Ist Floor, Hall Bazar, Amritsar, through its Manager/ Partner/ Proprietor/ Person Over All Incharge.
2. L.G.Electronics India, PNO-51 Surajpur Kasna R D Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida 201306, U.P. India through its Partner/ Proprietor/ Manager/ Director/ Person Over All Incharge.

Opposite Parties

Complaint under section 11 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.P.K.Bhandwaj, Advocate

              For the Opposite Parties: Sh.Deepinder Singh, Advocate

Quorum:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President

Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member

Order dictated by:

Sh.Bhupinder Singh, President.

1. Present complaint has been filed by Sita Ram Chaudhary under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act alleging therein that he purchased one Air Conditioner for a sum of Rs.34,300/- from Opposite Party No.1 vide Invoice No. 366 dated 11.5.2012 with one year warranty. The installation of the said Air Conditioner was also done/ completed by the Opposite Parties. Complainant alleges that on 1.5.2013 when the Air Conditioner  was still under warranty there was a short circuit/ mal functioning in the Air Conditioner  Unit due to which flames started coming out of Air Conditioner and   due to frame, the room in which Air Conditioner was installed caught fire causing damage of about Rs.3,50,000/- to the room and to the adjoining corridor of the room. The matter was reported to the Opposite Parties  vide e-mail dated 2.5.2013 and the representative of Opposite Party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and promised that they would reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant. The Opposite Parties  refunded the full amount of the bill dated 11.5.2012 to the complainant, but refused to reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant due to the fire as promised. Keeping in view the above said facts, it becomes quite evident that the complainant has suffered huge loss on account of hereditary manufacturing defect in the said Air Conditioner of Opposite Parties  and as such Opposite Parties  are liable to pay the amount of loss suffered by the complainant.   Alleging the same to be deficiency in service, complaint was filed seeking directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,50,000/- as loss suffered by the complainant. Compensation and litigation expenses were also demanded.
2. On notice, Opposite Parties appeared and filed written version in which it was submitted that the Opposite Parties  have got the said Air Conditioner  checked from the approved lab to know the reasons of burning and the report received reveals no manufacturing defect in the product, but it is due to external reasons, and it is the latches on the part of the complainant, as such the complaint merits dismissal.  Opposite Parties  further submitted that there was no short circuit/ mal functioning in the Air Conditioner unit. The factum of damage is denied due to lack of knowledge. Moreover, Opposite Party No.2 has settled the matter with the complainant to his satisfaction as a goodwill gesture. There is no liability of the Opposite Parties  to reimburse the complainant of any alleged loss if suffered by the complainant nor has the Opposite Parties  made any such commitment. Moreover, the Opposite Parties  have got the said Air Conditioner  checked from the approved lab to know the reasons of burning and the report received reveals no manufacturing defect in the product, but it is due to external reasons and it is the latches on the part of the complainant. While denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.
3. Complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C14 as well as additional affidavit of complainant Ex.C15, affidavit of Arjun Chaudhary Ex.C15/A, copies of e-mails Ex.C16 and Ex.C17 and affidavit of Sh.Kamdev Kumar Ex.C18   and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. Opposite Parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Jatinderpal Singh, Service Head Ex.OP1,2/1, copy of laboratory report Ex.OP1,2/2  and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
5. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties; arguments advanced by the ld.counsel for the parties and have appreciated the evidence produced on record by both the parties with the valuable assistance of the ld.counsel for both the parties.
6. From the record i.e.pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced on record by both the parties, it is clear that complainant purchased LG Air Conditioner from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 366 dated 11.5.2012 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 34,300/- with warranty of one year. The installation of the said AC at the premises of the complainant was also done by the Opposite Parties. On 1.5.2013 at about 2.00 am, there was a short circuit due to mal-functioning in the AC unit. The said AC caught fire and flames started coming out of the same and the AC got burnt by fire damaging the room in which it was installed and the adjoining corridor of the house of the complainant. The matter was reported to the opposite party vide e-mail dated 2.5.2013. The representative of opposite party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and they promised to reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant. But the opposite party refunded the amount of the bill of AC dated 11.5.2012 to the complainant and refused to reimburse the other loss suffered by the complainant due to fire which took place due to mal-functioning of the AC unit. The complainant has suffered huge loss on account of inherent manufacturing defect in the said AC, as a result of which AC caught fire and burst with fire which caused damage to the room and the adjoining corridor of the house of the complainant. In this regard the complainant produced photographs Ex.C-9 to C-14 showing the damage caused to the house of the complainant, as a result of burning of the AC. The complainant submitted that he suffered huge inconvenience, harassment on account of said happening which occurred due to manufacturing defect in the AC. The matter was reported to the fire brigade, who also submitted their report Ex.C-13. The matter was also reported to the police. The SHO concerned and other police officials also visited the spot. The complainant had to get the room, in which the AC was installed as well as the adjoining corridor of his house repaired and painted. Ld.counsel for the complainant submitted that Kamdev Kumar S/o Ram Parkash, Contractor undertook the work of POP and laying of tiles and cement, plastering, painting and he charged Rs. 1,02,000/- from the complainant. In this regard the affidavit of said Kamdev Kumar is Ex.C-18. The complainant spent an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for the purchase of paint and other material for the repair of the house as per bills Ex.C-5 to C-8. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted that complainant approached the opposite party for the reimbursement of this amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- suffered by the complainant alongwith compensation but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. All this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party qua the complainant.
7. Whereas the case of the opposite parties is that the opposite parties got checked the said AC from the approved Lab to know the reasons of burning and the report reveals no manufacturing defect in the product but it is due to external reasons that AC got fire and burst . So it may be due to latches on the part of the complainant. Opposite party refunded the price amount of the AC to the complainant. Opposite party is not liable to reimburse the loss, if any suffered by the complainant nor the opposite party had made any such commitment to the complainant. The complainant has filed false and frivolous complaint. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party submitted that opposite party is not liable to reimburse the loss caused to the complainant due to fire occurred as a result of short circuiting of the AC which was due to external reasons and the opposite party is not liable to reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant due to damage to the room and the adjoining corridor, as alleged by the complainant. He, therefore, submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties qua the complainant.
8. From the entire above discussion, it stands fully proved on record that the complainant purchased LG Air Conditioner from opposite party No.1 vide invoice No. 366 dated 11.5.2012 Ex.C-2 for a sum of Rs. 34,300/- with warranty of one year. The installation of the said AC at the premises of the complainant was also done by the Opposite Parties. On 1.5.2013 at about 2.00 AM, there was a short circuit in the inner unit of the Air Conditioner, as a result of which said Air Conditioner  caught fire and was burnt with burst and the flames came out of the Air Conditioner in question and damaged the room of the complainant in which it was installed as well as the adjoining area of the house of the complainant. The matter was reported to the opposite party vide e-mail dated 2.5.2013 Ex.C17. The representative of opposite party No.2 visited the premises of the complainant and inspected the site. Opposite Party No.2 refunded the amount of the bill of Air Conditioner  dated 11.5.2012 to the complainant, but refused to reimburse the other loss suffered by the complainant due to fire which took place due to mal functioning  of the inner unit of the Air Conditioner in question. The complainant has suffered huge loss in this incident as the inner unit of the Air Conditioner  in question caught fire on account of inherent manufacturing defect in the said Air Conditioner. The complainant also produced on record the report of Assistant Divisional Fire Officer, Municipal Corporation, Amritsar in this regard Ex.C3. The matter was also reported to the police and concerned SHO and other officials who also visited the spot. The complainant produced and proved on record the photographs Ex.C9 to Ex.C14 showing damage caused to the house of the complainant. The complainant had to get repair of laying of tiles and cement, plastering, painting as well as work of POP done. The complainant in this regard also produced the bills from Aggarwal Paints, Loharka Road, Amritsar Ex.C5 dated 15.5.2013 of Rs.24020/-, bill Ex.C6 dated 20.5.2013 of Rs.72800/-, bill Ex.C7 dated 1.6.2013 of Rs.96050/- and bill Ex.C8 dated 17.6.2013 for Rs.29655/- of the purchase of the material for the repair of the house i.e. laying of tiles and cement, plastering, painting, polishing as well as work of POP done, etc. In this way,  the complainant in all, paid Rs.2,22,525/- for the purchase of material for the repair of the house. The complainant also produced the  affidavit of Sh.Kamdev Kumar son of Sh.Ram parshad Mandal Ex.C18 who undertook the repair and civil work as well as POP and laying of tiles and cement, plastering, painting in the premises of the complainant i.e. H.No.7, Green Villa, Loharka Road, Amritsar and he charged  a sum of Rs.1,02,000/- from the complainant i.e. Rs.15,000/- for POP, Rs.18,000/- for cement plastering involved, Rs.48,000/- for painting/ plastic paint in room, lobby, kitchen, etc. Rs. 10,000/- for paint/ polish to doors and windows and Rs.11,000/- towards vitrified tiles flooring. All this shows that the complainant spent Rs.3,24,525/- (Rs.2,22,525/-+ Rs.1,02,000/-= Rs.3,24,525/-) on the repair of house of the complainant i.e. laying of tiles and cement, plastering, painting, polishing as well as work of POP done, etc. The complainant claimed this amount from the Opposite Party because the complainant had to spend this amount on the repair, etc. of his house due to fire which broke out in the house of the complainant due to short circuit in the inner unit of the Air Conditioner of the complainant. Opposite Party has stated that they got checked the Air Conditioner from their mechanic whose report is Ex.OP1,2/2  in which they  concluded that the possible cause of fire: Sparking in I/C Power Cord due to loose/ bad joint causing fire in indoor Unit-Installation issue. Opposite Party did not examine any of their mechanic or engineer to prove this report. Further, in this report they have stated that it was installation issue whereas it is admitted case of the Opposite Party that the Split Air Conditioner was installed by the Mechanic/ Engineering staff of the Opposite Party. Further, it is clear that this fire took place in the inner unit of the Air Conditioner of the complainant. So, it stands fully proved that this Fire took place in the inner unit of the Split Air Conditioner of the complainant manufactured by Opposite Party No.2 due to manufacturing defect (that is why the Opposite Party paid the full amount of the Air Conditioner to the complainant), as a result of which the complainant suffered loss due to burst of the Air Conditioner, consequently the  room, corridor and other parts of the house of the complainant were badly damaged and the complainant had to spent an amount of Rs.3,24,525/- on the repair of his house. Generally, house owner has to get  repair of his house i.e. plaster, painting, polishing, white washing  and other work done periodically. No doubt the Opposite Party is liable to compensate the complainant for the loss he has suffered due to fire which took place in the inner unit of the Split Air Conditioner manufactured and installed by the Opposite Party at the house of the complainant. But keeping in view all the aforesaid facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice will be fully met if Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to pay compensation i.e. 50% of the amount, the complainant has spent on the repair i.e laying of tiles, cement, plastering, painting, polishing, white washing as well as work of POP done of his house  as a  result of fire which broke out due to burst in the inner unit of the Split Air Conditioner of the complainant.
9. Resultantly, we partly allow the complaint with costs and the Opposite Party No. 2  is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,62,262/- to say Rs.1,62,260/- (50% of total amount Rs.3,24,525/-) to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Opposite Party No. 2  shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% per annum,  on this amount of Rs.1,62,260/-, from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment is made to the complainant. Opposite Party No. 2  is also directed to pay the litigation expenses to the complainant to the tune of  Rs.2000/-.    Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.

Dated: 14.10.2015.                                                   (Bhupinder Singh)                                                                                              President

hrg                                                                    (Kulwant Kaur Bajwa)   

            Member