DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.754 of 2010
Farah Waquil,
D/o Sri Waquil Ahmad,
R/o 6/4, Payagpur House,
Hanuman Setu, Near Yog Bhawan,
University Road, Lucknow (U.P.)
……Complainant
Versus
1. L.G. India,
Through its Company Secretary,
Corporate Office, L.G. India,
Plot No.51, Udyog Nagar, Surajpur,
Kasna Road, Greater Noida, U.P.
2. L.G. Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.,
B-537, Harikunj, Keshav Nagar,
Sitapur Road, Lucknow.
3. Sahu Agencies Pvt. Ltd.,
Sahu Theatre Building,
Hazratganj, Lucknow. .......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of amount of Rs.3,97,500.00 with 12% interest and compensation of Rs.50,000.00.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that the Complainant had purchased a TV set from Sahu Agencies Pvt. Ltd. OP No.3 on 14.06.2009 on which there was one year warranty. During the warranty period there occurred a burst in the TV set in the night of 6/7.05.2010 as a result of which the fire broke out in the room. The fire spoiled the TV set and caused extensive damage to other articles kept in the room. It burnt and spoiled the wooden show case, music system, DVD
-2-
and the curtains. The blast of TV set has also caused damage to the roof of the room and a crack has appeared. The POP work on the ceiling of the room has fallen down. In the night of the occurrence the Complainant’s mother heard a sound and when she checked for the source of sound of the blast and went to the room where the TV was installed and there she found that the TV set was burning and black and pungent smoke was coming out of it. She started shouting and immediately went to the other room and asked the children to come out of the house and called the neighbours for help. The neighbours came and put main switch off and saw the burning TV but could do nothing due to the suffocating fumes. Meanwhile the fire had spread and started burning other things. The incident was reported to Fire Service Department and all the doors and windows were opened to get the smoke out of the house. The fire service team extinguished the fire by pumping water because of which the sofa, mattress, wooden wardrobe, computer and its printer were damaged. The officers of the Fire Service also came to the conclusion that the fire broke out due to the blast of TV set. The Complainant’s mother reported the matter to the customer care department of the respondent Company where she was given a request ID number. On 07.05.2010 Sri Rajiv Gaur visited the place of the occurrence. Sri Rajiv Gaur again visited the Complainant’s place on 08.05.2010 with other officers of the Company and examined the wreckage, electricity connection and wiring, cable TV connection and also inspected the damaged articles and the Complainant’s house including the damaged roof. They also took photographs of the site and had seen that the electrical wiring and switches of the Complainant’s house was still intact and safe. After inspection of the site the said officers accepted that the blast in the TV set had occurred due to the manufacturing defect in the TV set and assured that the Company will adequately compensate the Complainant against
-3-
the loss. After 2-3 days the Complainant received a call from the Company for a new TV and DVD set only in spite of the fact that the Company employees had themselves seen the extensive damage on the spot. On 14.05.2010 the Complainant had sent an email to the Company that she may be compensated expeditiously. On 22.05.2010 Sri S.N. Singh of the Company contacted at the Complainant’s residence and offered a new LCD TV and DVD of the same model but when she asked about other things then he wanted the details of assessment of loss. The Complainant’s mother provided a photocopy of the detail of damages and estimate of repairing, furnishing etc. which is prepared by a registered approved valuer. Sri S.N. Singh assured that he will process the papers to his superiors and inform about the outcome. The fire not only burnt the articles of the room but also damaged the roof of the room which needed repairs. The Complainant has suffered a pecuniary loss of Rs.1,20,000.00 towards painting, furnishing and civil work and Rs.2,40,000.00 towards the wastage of articles and thus the Complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.3,60,000.00 and the OPs are liable to compensate the Complainant for loss suffered but as the OPs have not made the payment, therefore this complaint.
The OP No.1 and 2 has filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that there is no such report on record of the officers of fire service department that the fire broke out due to the blast of TV set. When the employees of the answering OP visited the residence of the Complainant, then they found that the cause of fire was not from the LCD as the set was on complete off mode for the last two days from the date of cause of fire and the Complainant has also confirmed the things in the meetings held on 08.05.2010 with the officers of the answering OP. The answering OP Company in order to keep its reputation of its products, maintains high class quality control, under which the goods are passed before seeing the
-4-
fact of the market, hence the allegations in this regard by the Complainant are fake and imaginary. Proper reply has been given on 09.06.2010 by the answering OP to the Complainant. No cause of action arose to the Complainant to file the case against the answering OP. The whole complaint case is based on concocted story just to create undue pressure on the answering OP No.1 and 2 for fulfilling the Complainant’s wrongful demands. As per Company’s records, the facts of the case are that the cause of fire was not from the LCD whereas it was from some other sources. The same may be from the electricity short circuit or there were other electrical components in the room from where the fire initiated. OP No.1 and 2 have neither offered a new LCD TV and DVD of the same model nor offered other claims of loss. No fire occurred due to LG’s LCD TV and if any fire occurred then the same was from some other external sources. The product of LG are quality tested and meet all the international standards laid down for LCD TV and there has never been any failure reported in the past. There is no co-relation between a consumer and the seller which is only between a consumer and the authorized dealer of the Company. In the fitness of things an expert opinion by some Government approved expert be obtained by referring the matter so that a correct picture be arrived at. No cause of action arose to the Complainant. The LCD was not defective and there has been no deficiency in service, hence the present complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
The OP No.3 has filed the WS wherein he has submitted the facts more or less on the lines of the facts mentioned by the OP No.1 and 2. In addition it has also been submitted that the answering OP is only authorized dealer of the LG Company OP No.1 and 2 and not the manufacturer, hence no liability can be fastened upon the answering OP. The Complainant has not made allegation against answering OP and the Complainant
-5-
has not informed about fire or any type of defects or problems. The answering OP is only proforma party which means no grievance against answering OP and only grievance against OP No.1 and 2, hence no deficiency in service of the answering OPs. The Complainant is not prima facie maintainable in the eye of law. The complaint of the Complainant deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost.
The Complainant has also filed the replication against the WS of the OPs.
The Complainant has filed her affidavit with 11 annexures and 7 annexures with the complaint. The OP No.1 and 2 have filed the affidavit of Sri Satya Narayan Singh, Authorized Signatory, LG Electronics Inida Pvt. Ltd. with paper No.8 to 14. The OP No.3 has filed the affidavit of Sri Lal Jee Pandey, Recovery Officer, Sahu Agencies.
Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
It is not disputed that the Complainant had purchased a LG TV set and DVD set from Sahu Agencies OP No.3 on 14.06.2009 and that there was a one year warranty on the TV set. The disputed point according to the Complainant is that in the night of 06/07-05-2010 the TV set burst and a fire ensued causing damage to the articles kept in the room and also damaging the room. When the Complainant asked the OPs to compensate the Complainant for the loss occurred to him because of the bursting of the TV then the OPs refused to do so and thus the OPs have committed deficiency in service, or the bursting of the TV was not because of any defect in the TV but because of some short circuit or some other sources, therefore the OPs have not committed any deficiency in service in refusing the claim of the Complainant.
The Complainant’s TV burst in the night of 06/07-05-2010 whereby a fire broke out causing extensive damage to the articles kept in the room and also causing
-6-
damage to the roof of the room where the TV was kept. The Complainant has filed photographs of the burst TV, the articles such as sofa, bed and so many other articles kept in the room and also the roof of the room showing damage to them. In support of his contention that the TV burst because of the defect in TV the Complainant has filed the report of an electrical engineer of the National Refrigeration Engineers who in his report dated 22.05.2010 which is filed as annexure 4, stated that “the transformer of the TV set heated up due to supply of the current and resulted into burst fire. If the TV set is off through remote the current should not be supplied to the transformer.” From this report, it transpires that the bursting of the TV was because of the fault in the TV. In this regard, the contention of the OPs is that the cause of the fire was not bursting of the TV but from short circuit and other sources but so far as short circuit is concerned no evidence has been found in the room that there was a short circuit in the electric line of the room. On the contrary, there is the report again of the electrical engineer of the National Refrigeration Engineers annexure No.5 dated 22.05.2010 wherein it has been reported that on the inspection the electric connections and line were found to be active and in perfect condition. There was no sign of burning and heating inside the sockets and that the electric installations were of high standard and precaution for damage through high voltage have been taken care of. He did not find any evidence that the damage was caused due to the high voltage. Thus, from this report also, it is clear that there was no short circuit in the line and that there was no high voltage also and therefore it cannot be said that the burst was called due to the short circuit or because of high voltage fluctuation or any other source. The OPs have also miserably failed in showing that the cause of fire was because of short circuit, high voltage fluctuation or any other source as they have not been able to provide any evidence in support of the stand. On the contrary,
-7-
the Complainant has filed evidence to show that there was neither short circuit nor high voltage fluctuation nor any other source responsible for causing burst in the TV; rather it was because of the defect in the TV as pointed out by the engineer of the National Refrigeration Engineers report dated 22.05.2010 annexure No.4 and 5. There is also the report of the Fire Department dated 19.05.2010 wherein it has been reported that “vkx nq?kZVuk dk dkj.k Kkr djus ij fo|qr “kkVZ lfdZV izrhr gqvkA ;g Hkh laHko gS fd Vh0oh0 CykLV Hkh dkj.k jgk gksA” The Complainant has taken the support of this report on the ground that the Fire Department also opines that the cause of fire could be TV blast but the OPs have also taken assistance of this report on the ground that the fire could be because of short circuit and therefore the cause of the fire was not the bursting of the TV. But firstly the Fire Department has also given the possible cause of fire to be TV blast and even though it has also opined that the fire could be due to short circuit but as the engineers have ruled out the possibility of the short circuit and that there was in fact no evidence whatsoever to conclude that the fire was caused due to short circuit, hence the only reason that remains for causing the fire is bursting of the TV. Therefore, it is concluded that the fire was caused by the bursting of the TV because of the defect in the TV itself.
Now, as the fire was caused because of the defect in the TV and that too within the period of warranty, therefore the OP No.1 and 2 were responsible for providing such a defective set which by bursting during the period of the warranty caused extensive damage not only to the TV but also to the articles kept in the room and also causing damage to the roof of the room. Therefore, the OP No.1 and 2 have committed unfair trade practice and serious deficiency in service in providing such a defective TV set to the Complainant. The OP No.3 is not responsible for the manufacturing defect in the TV as it is only a dealer and as per the established norms in case of
-8-
manufacturing defect the manufacturers are responsible for the loss and not the dealers, therefore the OP No.3 is not responsible.
Since the OP No.1 and 2 have committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, therefore the Complainant is entitled to compensation for loss occasioned to him because of fire emanating from the bursting of the TV and damaging the articles. In this regard, the contention of the Complainant is that the officials of the OPs had come to the residence and had offered her the new TV and DVD of the same model and subsequently even offered to get the room white washed but as the loss that occurred was to the tune of Rs.3,60,000.00 in which Rs.1,20,000.00 for the painting, furnishing and civil work of the room and Rs.2,40,000.00 for the loss of articles and cost of TV and DVD of Rs.37,500.00, hence the Complainant refused that offer. The Complainant has also filed a photocopy of the articles damaged as per the report of the fire officer dated 19.05.2010 wherein TV, sofa, bed, almirah, computer, printer and showcase, music system, curtains and plaster of the roof etc. were damaged. He has also filed the photographs of the articles damaged and also a report of the valuer which is filed as annexure 6 with affidavit of the Complainant who has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.1,20,000.00 for the damage in the building and Rs.2,40,000.00 for the articles damaged in the fire. The learned Counsel of the OPs have disputed the reports of the valuer but they have not filed any evidence to discredit the report of the valuer. There is no report even of the spot inspection admittedly made by the officials of the OPs. The loss which can be seen through the photographs filed by the Complainant is extensive. Besides it is well supported by the report not only of the fire officer but also of the valuer. Therefore, there are strong reasons to conclude that the fire which was caused by the bursting of the TV had damaged the TV, DVD and other
-9-
articles enumerated in the complaint and the total loss that has occasioned to the Complainant is to the tune of Rs.3,97,500.00 which includes loss due to the damage to the room to the articles and to the TV and DVD. Since this damage is solely due to the bursting of the TV provided by the OP No.1 and 2, therefore the OP No.1 and 2 are liable to make good the loss occasioned to the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to a new LCD TV and DVD of the same model and Rs.3,60,000.00 for the loss occasioned to her. As the Complainant has also been harassed in this regard, hence she is also entitled to compensation and as the case is lingering for the last many years, she is also entitled to the cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OP No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to provide a new LCD TV and DVD of the same value and also pay the amount of Rs.3,60,000.00 (Rupees Three Lakh Sixty Thousand Only) to the complainant.
The OP No.1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.6,000.00 (Rupees Six Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.4,000.00 (Rupees Four Thousand only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month. If the compliance of the order is not made within a month then the OP No.1 and 2 will have to pay 9% interest on the entire amount due.
(Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member President Dated: 29 May, 2015
