KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 168/2018
JUDGMENT DATED: 03.08.2023
(Against the Order in C.C. 580/2014 of CDRC, Ernakulam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
Unnikrishnan C., Choorakkadu Kara, Pattimattom P.O-683 562.
(By Adv. Tom Joseph)
Vs.
RESPONDENTS:
- Manager, LG Electronics India Ltd., Branch Office, Fortune Arcade, Palarivattom, Kochi-25.
(By Adv. M/s KNB Nair Associates & Jaideep G. Nair)
- M/s Pittapillil Agencies, LG Shoppe, A.M. Road, Perumbavoor-683 542.
JUDGMENT
SMT. BEENAKUMARY A. : MEMBER
The appellant is the complainant in C.C. No. 580/2014 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam (District Forum for short). The complaint is regarding the damage caused to the house and household articles of the complainant by the fire emanated from the refrigerator supplied by the opposite parties. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order the complainant has filed this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are as follows: The complainant purchased an LG 190 ltr refrigerator from the 2nd opposite party on 06.08.2013 for a price of Rs. 12,400/- with one year warranty. On 23.05.2014 the complainant at 3 a.m. woke up from sleep on hearing an unusual sound. When he opened the door thick dark smoke gushed into the bed room and it was found that the entire house was filled with black smoke. The refrigerator installed in the dining room and other utensils kept nearby were burning. The complainant somehow managed to open the front door and saved the family members. Two daughters of the complainant were hospitalized. The fire erupted from the bottom of the new refrigerator supplied by the opposite parties. The fire subsided only after two hours. The entire electrical materials, fittings, cloths, beds, steel almirahs, LCD T.V., doors etc. were totally destroyed due to the fire. The complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs due to the damage suffered to the building and other installations. The Fire Force team, local Police, KSEB officers, Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector etc. have visited the house and they came to the conclusion that the fridge had manufacturing defects and the explosion erupted from the compressor of the fridge. The opposite parties came to the house of the complainant but they are not willing to compensate for the loss suffered by the complainant. The complainant and his family members were compelled to vacate their house as it was not habitable after the incident. The complainant sought Rs. 16 lakhs towards compensation in connection with the incident which was to be paid by the opposite parties jointly and severally.
3. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. The 1st opposite party appeared and filed a version contending inter-alia as follows: The complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands. There was no defect for the fridge and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The fire originated from the stabilizer and not from the refrigerator. From the date of purchase till the date of accident there was no complaint at all for the fridge and it was not a defective one. The complainant has violated the terms of use. The stabilizer was kept on the top of the fridge as against the instructions given. The technical expert of the opposite party visited the premises of the complainant and found that the compressor of the fridge was intact. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
4. The evidence in this case consists of the oral evidence of PWs1 to 4 and Exbts. A1 to A7 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exbts. B1 to B5 were marked. Exbt. X1, X1(a) and C1 were also marked.
5. On the basis of the documents, pleadings and other evidence the District Forum found that the complainant has no evidence to prove that the fire broke out from the fridge. The incident happened on 23.02.2015 and immediately after the incident the Deputy Electrical Inspector inspected the house and Ext. A2 report was prepared by him. As per Ext. A2, the fire emanated from the back portion of the fridge at the packing foam. The Electrical Inspector was examined as PW4. Ext. A2 is the report prepared by him. In his report, he stated that “അന്വേഷണത്തിൽ നിന്നും കിട്ടിയ വിവരങ്ങളിൽ നിന്നും തെളിവുകളിൽ നിന്നും തീ പിടിത്തം ഉണ്ടായത് ഫ്രിഡ്ജിന്റെ പിൻ ഭാഗത്ത് നിന്നാണെന്നും ഫ്രിഡ്ജിന്റെ ഉൾഭാഗത്ത് പാക്കിങ്ങിനായി ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്ന ഫോം പോലത്തെ പദാർത്ഥത്തിൽ നിന്നാണെന്നും മനസിലാക്കുന്നു. ഈ തീ പിടിത്തം ഫ്രിഡ്ജിന്റെ കേടുപാടു കൊണ്ട് സംഭവിച്ചതാണെന്നാണ് അനുമാനിക്കുന്നത്.” At the time of cross examination he had taken the same stand. The finding of the District Forum on this aspect is wrong.
6. The complainant has produced Ext. A3 document prepared by Feby Consultants. They assessed the loss sustained due to the fire accident. As per that report total loss was calculated as Rs. 5,07,100/-. As per the complainant he had a loss of Rs. 16,00,000/- due to the catch of fire. The opposite party argued that the fire originated from some external source, it may be stabilizer or electric short circuit. The said model refrigerator was a quality tested and meets all the international standard. It is also submitted that there has never been any product failure or failure reported in any part in India. Here the evidence shows that due to the defect of the refrigerator the fire occurred and the compressor of the fridge burnt and broken.
7. Ext. B4 is the report filed by the Fire Force Authority, the Assistant Station Officer, who is a government official. As per this report the damage assessed by them is Rs. 4,50,000/-. Ext. C1 report was submitted by the expert commissioner appointed by the District Forum. He is a Civil Engineer. At the time of cross examination he deposed that “താങ്കളുടെreport-ൽAll the electronics and electrical appliances including the fridge, stabilizer, TV, Fan were completely burned എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട് (Q) ശരിയാണ്(A)”. From this statement it is true that there was fire explosion and so many home appliances are destroyed, thereby the complainant had sustained huge loss. In Ext. C1 report the Commissioner reported that “It is seen that all the electronic and electrical appliances including the fridge, its stabilizer, TV, fan, etc. inside the dining room were completely burnt and damaged due to the fire broke out from the refrigerator”. From this report it is clearly found that the damages caused due to the fire broke out from the fridge. As per Ext. C1 report submitted by the Expert Engineer the total amount required for rectifying the damages caused to the building was Rs. 2,53,000/-.
8. In his deposition the Expert Commissioner specifically stated that “തീ പിടിത്തത്തിന് കാരണമായfridgeപരിശോധിച്ചോ? (Q) പരിശോധിച്ചു. fridge-ന്റെ back sideമുഴുവൻ കത്തിയിരിക്കുകയായിരുന്നു”. From this statement it is clear that the fire broke out from the fridge. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the basis that there was no proof that the fire broke out from the fridge. Ext. X1 is the report filed by the Electrical Inspector stating that the fire broke out due to damage of the fridge.
9. From the above mentioned discussion we find that due to the defect of the fridge fire broke out and thereby damage was caused to the complainant. The District Forum failed to see the documents and evidence adduced from the side of the complainant and the reports submitted by Authorized Government officials and Expert Commissioner.
10. In this case the complainant had produced the loss assessment report submitted by a private agency. That unauthorized report was not accepted by the Commission. The loss assessment report of the expert commissioner is only acceptable. As per Ext. C1 report total amount for rectifying the damages to the building is Rs. 2,53,000/- and damage to electrical and electronic appliances (as per bill) is Rs. 77,800/- totaling to Rs. 3,30,800/-. Due to the incident the complainant and his family suffered too much hardship, inconvenience, mental agony and financial loss.
11. As per Sec. 2(c)(IV)(V) goods which will be hazardous to life and safety when used are being offered for sale to the public amounts to unfair trade practice. There is unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties. Hence complainant is entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties. The complainant/appellant has successfully proved his case before the District Forum. But the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint. The 1st respondent is the manufacturer of the refrigerator and the 2nd respondent is the dealer. The damage was caused due to the defect of the refrigerator. For that the 1st respondent is liable to compensate the complainant.
12. The appellant is entitled to get Rs. 3,30,800/- as compensation for the loss caused due to the fire that broke out from the defective fridge. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship sustained by him due to the act of the 1st respondent and the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the proceedings.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Forum in C.C. No. 580/2014 is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to pay Rs. 3,30,800/- as the total loss caused by the appellant as per Ext. C1 report and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs. The 1st respondent shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order, otherwise the above said amounts shall carry interest @ 9% per annum.
JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb
