Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/252/2015

Dr. Savita Malhotra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Luminous Power Technologies Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sukaam Gupta, Adv

30 Mar 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	252 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	19.5.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	30.03.2017

 

 

 

 

 

Dr. Savita Malhotra, wife of Late Dr. Anil Malhotra, resident of House No.65, Sector 24-A, Chandigarh 160 023.

                …..Complainant

Versus

 

1.  Luminous Power Technology Limited having Corporate Office at C-8 & C-9, Community Centre, behind Janak Cinema Complex Janakpuri, New Delhi 110 058, through its Managing Director.

 

2.  Luminous Power Technologies Limited through the Tri-City Area Sales Manager, Mr. Jitendra Singh, agent of Opposite Party No.1.

 

3.  M/s J.K. Enterprises, Shop No.46, Sant Baba Kartar Singh Market, Kharar, District Mohali through its proprietor/partner.

 

4.  Mr. Pawan Kumar Shukla, son of Ram Murthy Shukla, resident of First Floor, House No.2662-A, Sector 20D, Chandigarh, agent of opposite Party No.1. 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

         SH. RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for the                     complainant.  

 

For OP No.1&2           :     Sh. Gunjan Rishi, Adv.

 

For OP No.3             :     Sh. Devinder Kumar, Adv. proxy for Sh.                            P.K. Kukreja, Adv.       

For OP No.4             :     Sh. Rajneesh Maohotra, Adv. and OP No.4                           in person.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant on 23.9.2014 purchased a Luminous inverter alongwith batteries of OPs No.1&2 from OP No.3 for a sum of Rs.31,800/- which also included rack and installation charges.  The said inverter was installed on 29.9.2014 by OP No.4 under the supervision of OP No.2 (both are agents of OP No.1).  On 7.10.2014 when there was power cut for the first time in the house of the complainant after installation of the inverter which consequently turned on for the first time as well, the complainant realized that even after the electricity supply came back, the inverter did not switch off and kept running till its battery ran out.  The complainant called upon OPS No.2.  alongwith OP No.4 and they came to the house of the complainant on 8.10.2014 but after tinkering with the wiring and electricity main board for a few hours they could not find the problem and made some alternate connections to restore the house electricity and left the house of the complainant. After sometime the complainant noticed that many appliances/electronic devices namely Samsung 46” LED TV, Sony MHC G880 Music System, Philips Blu-Ray Disc Player, Panasonic Cordless Phone 5.8 GHz I-phone 5S Charges, Apple Macbook Air Charger, Tata Sky HD Box, Sony2-in-1, 2 large extension boards, and 01 philips bulb had burst/exploded, got burnt and there found burning smells.  On this the complainant called OPs No.2 and 4 alongwith Electrical Engineer Mr. Lajpat and it was found that OPs No.2and 4 had connected the inverter directly to the main supply line and not to the individual light and fan points. As a result of this wrong connection, all the electronic appliances of the complainant were burnt. It is alleged that due to this negligent act of OPs NO.2&4 not only the electrical appliances of the complainant were burnt but it could have caused danger to the life and property of the complainant. When the OPs tried to evade their liability the complainant on 10.10.2014 lodged a complaint with police station, Sector 11, Chandigarh.  Thereafter the complainant made numerous correspondence with OPs No.3 & 4 but to no effect.  Even the police authority tried to settle the matter amicably but the OPs despite admitting their fault were adamant to get the damaged appliances/equipments repaired at their cost from after-market mechanics (those sitting in Sector 18 booth market, Chandigarh) whereas the complainant insisted that her equipments be got repaired from the authorized service centers of their respective brand as they were expensive items. The complainant claimed that OPs even declined to pay the estimated repair costs. Alleging the said act of OPs as deficiency in service, this compliant has been filed.

 

2]      The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their joint reply stated that the entire case of the complainant is that the installation of the inverter was defective and that the alleged loss occurred due to faulty installation but nowhere in the entire complainant the complainant alleged that the inverter and the batteries supplied by the answering OPs were defective. Thus, under this scenario, the case is not maintainable against the answering OPs. It is pleaded that the answering OPs do not provide installation of their products and have not charged the complainant for the same. The installation was done by OP No.4 who is not an employee/agent/representative of the answering OPs. Hence there is no lapse on the part of the answering OPs. It is further pleaded that the allegation of the complainant that the inverter was directed connected to main supply line and not individual light and fan point is technically wrong and incorrect, also the complainant has failed to produce on record any expert opinion.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

         OP NO.3 while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that it is only an aurhorized seller of the products manufactured by OPs No.1&2. The relation between the OPs No.1&2 and 3 is on principal to principal basis and it cannot be held liable for the act and omissions of the OPs No.1&2.  Denying all other allegations of the complaint it is prayed that the complainant be dismissed against it.

        OP No.4 in its reply stated that installation of inverter is a standardized procedure which does not require any change to be done to the main electrical circuit of the house. In the present case also, the answering OP has not changed any main electrical circuit of the house of the complainant. It is vehemently denied that any appliances/electronic devices had burnt and there were foul burning smells. It is pertinent to mention here that the inverter in question was installed in the premises of the complainant on 23.9.2014 and if there was any problem in the connection of the inverter the electricity of the house would have been affected on that very day itself and not after the 10-11 days as tried to be projected/shown by the complainant.  It is highly unbelievable that the electric appliances got damaged due to the wrongly installation of the inverter after 10-11 days.  It is pleaded that it is a common knowledge that if the electrical connections done by the answering Ops were wrong the fuse of the inverter or the fuses of the electrical circuit/meter would have blown at that very relevant point of time when the inverter checked on 23.9.2014 and would not have waited till 8.10.2014 to cause any damage.  Thus, the complainant has made a false complaint to unnecessarily harass the answering OP. Denying any deficiency on his part the answering OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

 

3]       The Complainant also filed rejoinders thereby reiterating the averments as made in complaint and controverting that of the Opposite Parties made in their respective replies.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The whole complaint comprises allegations mainly against Opposite Party NO.1, 2 & 4.  As per the allegations, the wrong installation of the inverter by OP No.4 resulted in damage of appliances/electronic devices of the complainant; namely Samsung 46” LED TV, Sony MHC G880 Music System, Philips Blu-Ray Disc Player, Panasonic Cordless Phone 5.8 GHz I-phone 5S Charges, Apple Macbook Air Charger, Tata Sky HD Box, Sony2-in-1, 2 large extension boards, and 01 philips bulb. 

 

         It is alleged in the complaint that as the OP NO.4 had connected the inverter directly to the main lines and not to the individual fan & light points, it resulted in double supply of electricity of 440 volts to all electric points, resulting the loss, as mentioned above.

 

        The complainant also lodged a police complaint in this regard and the statements of OPs NO.2, 4 and son of the complainant namely Sanyam, were got recorded and thereafter the complaint has been filed (Ann.C-18). 

 

         The complainant in support of her allegations also placed on record the report of Sh.Hari Krishan and Sh.Kewal Krishan regarding Electrical Complaint No.1759, lodged by the complainant on 10.10.2014 in the Maintenance Office, Sector 24, Chandigarh.  This report is counter signed by A.E. (Electrical) and J.E. (Electrical), Division No.III, PGI Chandigarh. The report supports the allegations of the complainant in the following terms:-

 

“When we opened the M.C.B. box to fix the fault, it was seen that the neutral wire in the E.L.C.B. was not properly fix, it was loose and the inverter supply was also connected to the main circuit.  Whereas, inverter wiring already existed, which was required to be connected separately to the light and fan switches only.  The damage occurred because the wires were improperly fixed.  Before this incident everything was in working order and there was no fault in the electrical wiring.”

 

7]       In order to decide the present controversy, we perused the whole record before us especially the corroborative evidence placed on record by the complainant in support of her allegations.  We are of the considered opinion that in the absence of any cogent evidence, the allegations made out by the complainant against the OPs, seems technically not plausible.  In the assertions made by Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in their reply they completely denied any deficiency in service and also denied anything wrong committed by OP No.4 in installing the inverter. 

 

8]       The OPs NO.1 & 2 in their reply explained that the allegations made by the complainant regarding connection of the invertor directly to the main supply line and not individually to light & fan points, is technically incorrect, as the total electrical load in the house of the complainant, which has 3 Phase Supply, by estimation, is around 8 to 10 KV and the inverter, which was supplied by OPs NO.1 & 2 and installed by OP No.4 was of 2 KV, as duly admittedly in the complaint. Explained further that in that eventuality, it was impossible for the inverter to be directly connected to the main supply line as 2KV Inverter cannot handle direct supply of 8 to 10 KV, as there are Air Conditioners, Refrigerators, Geysers and other heavy electric items in the house of the complainant and the same cannot fed through 2 KV inverter, even if connected to the main supply line. 

 

9]       Further, OPs No.1 & 2 claimed that it is impossible for the electrical appliances to be damaged had the electricity been routed through the inverter in normal course and in the worst case, the inverter would have been damaged first and the other items would be damaged thereafter.  As it is not the case of the complainant that the inverter was damaged or working improperly, therefore, the OPs cannot be held liable for any loss.

 

10]      The OP No.4 has also explained in its reply that the inverter, which was installed on 23.9.2014 worked well after its installation.  Also claimed that had there been any problem in the connection of the inverter, the electricity of the house would have been affected on that very day itself and not after the 10-11 days as tried to be projected/shown by the complainant.  Further explained that as a matter of common knowledge, if the electrical connections are wrongly connected, then the fuse of the inverter and fuse of electrical circuit/meter would be blown at that very relevant point of time of its installation i.e. 23.9.2014 and would not have waited till 8.10.2014 to cause any damage. 

 

11]      In view of the above explanations given by OPs NO.1, 2 and OP NO.4, the allegations regarding wrong installation of inverter, goes unproved.  There is no specific expert opinion to contradict above explanations of OPs No.1, 2 & 4.

 

12]      The only report placed on record by the complainant of Sh.Hari Krishan and Sh.Kewal Krishan, Electricians, working in the maintenance Office is also not a technically sound report and is having no reference about the same in the original complaint, in police complaint and also has no reference in the statement made by the son of the complainant before the police.

 

13]      In the present complaint as well as in the police complaint and also in the statement, made by the son of the complainant before the Police, there is a reference that the complainant called one of his own technician namely Mr.Lajpat to enquire about the fault, who confirmed that the electrician OP No.4 has wrongly connected the wires while installing the inverter, but strangely the complainant has failed to place on record his duly sworn affidavit to prove the contentions as alleged for the reasons best known to her.

 

14]       In view of the above facts & circumstance, as discussed above, we are of the opinion that the matter in question needs elaborate evidence to prove the same, which includes examination & cross-examination of witnesses of both the parties and being summary nature of proceedings before this Forum, we relegate to decide the same. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.  However, the complainant shall be at liberty to resort to any other remedy, available to her, under law.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

30^th March, 2017                                                                             Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

 (RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER