By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
1. The complainant purchased a Samsung Refrigerator, RR20N182XR8/HL serial No.04144PAKBOO857E from the shop of the first opposite party for his domestic use. The date of purchase was on 21-01-2019 and the complainant paid Rs.20,550/- (Rupees twenty thousand five hundred and fifty only) for the same. The third opposite party , the manufacturer provided one year warranty to the above said refrigerator. On 29-08-2019 at about 1.00 AM in the midnight, when the complainant awakened, found smoke and fire inside the house and the refrigerator was seen ablaze. The complainant ran to the spot and switched off the plug and put out the fire by using water. According to the complainant that was miraculous escape of his family .It was stated in the complaint that the complainant approached the first opposite party in the very next day and informed the tragedy . One week later the representatives of the third opposite party came to the spot and inspected the refrigerator . After the inspection, a letter dated 05/09/2019 was received from that second opposite party by the complainant in which it was stated that the origin of fire was not due to the Samsung refrigerator and it got burnt / damaged due to some external fire/ heat source. Thereafter the complainant repeatedly contacted the first and second opposite parties to replace the refrigerator but did not turn up. The damaged refrigerator was not replaced and still kept in the house of the complainant . The complainant pleaded that the refrigerator was damaged during the period of warranty and not replaced by the opposite parties . According to the complainant he suffered financial loss as it remained damaged.
2. So the complainant prayed for direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.20550/- as the cost of the refrigerator, Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficicneny in service , Rs.1,000/- as cost transportation of refrigerator and Rs.10,000/- as the cost of the proceedings. The complaint is admitted on the file of the Commission and issued notices to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance. The first opposite party and the third opposite party filed version. The second opposite party not filed version and set exparte.
3) In the version, it was stated by the first opposite party that the facts narrated in the complaint is true to the best of his knowledge. It is admitted by the first opposite party that the complainant informed him about the irreparable damage of the refrigerator due to fire and he registered the complaint in the service centre of the third opposite party .It is revealed from the version that the service expert of the second opposite party arrived at the residence of the complainant and examined the refrigerator and taken the photographs. The photographs were sent to the office the third opposite party. Then the complainant received a letter from the opposite party stating that the refrigerator was damaged due to the fire caused from the outside the refrigerator. According to the first opposite party the complainant suffered loss and damages and even prayed before the Commission that the third opposite party should have paid the compensation to the complainant and replace the refrigerator.
4. The third opposite party filed version and contended that complainant has been filed with mischievous intention thereby enabling the complainant to enrich at the cost of the third opposite party by filing frivolous claim. According to the third opposite party, the damaged refrigerator thoroughly inspected, checked ad found that the unit has been burnt/ damaged due to some external fire/ heat source / external factor. It is added by the third opposite party that there is no manufacturing defect in the unit as alleged and it has been used extensively for more than seven months, had there been any alleged manufacturing defect it would not have worked for so long. In the version it is admitted that a letter was sent to the complainant stating the cause of fire. It is further stated that the refrigerator has got burnt due to some external factor/ heat source and that is a warranty void condition and the third opposite party is not liable for the same.
5. The third opposite party also contended that there is no liability incumbent upon the third opposite party as parties are obliged by terms and conditions mentioned in the warranty card. Moreover it is the case of the third opposite party that the complainant failed to allege any specific irreparable manufacturing defect in the product nor filed any documentary evidence i.e. authenticated report of independent expert and qualified person of central approved laboratories in support of alleged submission as required under law. According to the third opposite party , as per under section 13(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 if the complainant alleges manufacture defect a technical report should be sought by the complainant. It is also stated that the complaint is gross misuse of law and no cause of action has arise in favour of the complainant . There is no deficiency in service or denial of service on the part of the third opposite party and its service provider. It is also contended in the version that no damages are payable for mental agony in case of breach of ordinary commercial contracts and of where damages are awarded there must be averment there of as pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court . The third opposite party also claimed that being a renowned company the technology used by it is highly sophisticated.
6. The third opposite party denied all allegations raised by the complainant in complaint. It is stated that the engineer of the third opposite party and technician of the second opposite party reached at the spot and thoroughly inspected the refrigerator when complaint was noticed. According to the third opposite party cause of damage was due to the fire from some external source and not due to manufacturer defect. This fact was informed the complainant by the third opposite party and also expressed inability to repair or replace the refrigerator as per the terms and condition stipulated in the warranty card. It is also said that no loss and agony due defect of manufacture suffered by this complainant. It is argued by the third opposite party that the complainant is not entitled to get any kind of compensation as prayed in the complaint. So the third opposite party is stands for dismissal of the complaint in the interest of justice .
7. The complainant and the third opposite party are filed affidavit. The first opposite party not filed affidavit. The complainant produced documents and marked as Ext. A1 to A3. Ext. A1 document is the copy of invoice No.937 dated 21/01/2019 issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A2 document is the copy of letter dated 05/09/2019 issued by the second opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A3 document is the copy of warranty card issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. The third opposite party produced documents and marked as Ext. B1 to B5. Ext B1 document is the power of attorney issued by the third opposite party in favour of Mr. Sandeep Sahijwam, General Manager/ PL & CDRF (Employee ID 10593037) to defend the case before the Commission . Ext. B2 (series) documents are the copy of the investigation report along with photographs (26 pages) taken by the third opposite party at the time inspection of damaged refrigerator . Ext. B3 (series) document is the copy of analysis report produced by the third opposite party (10 pages). Ext. B4 document is the copy of warranty card of the refrigerator. Ext. B5 document is the copy of the letter dated 05/09/2019 sent by the second opposite party to the complainant.
Heard both sides, perused affidavits and documents. The points arised for the consideration before the Commission are as follows:-
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) Relief and cost
8. Point No.1 and 2
It is admitted by the both sides that on 21-01-2019 the complainant purchased a refrigerator manufactured by the third opposite party through its dealer who is the first opposite party . According to the evidence adduced by the complainant on 29/08/2019 at about 1.00 am in the midnight , the complainant found smoke and fire inside his house and the refrigerator was seen ablaze. Then the complainant ran into the spot switched off the plug and put out the fire by using water. At the same time in Ext. B2 (series) document produced by the third opposite party it was stated that customers mother switched off the main and control the fire with the help of water. The undisputed fact in the refrigerator became damaged due to fire and was not fit for use. The allegation put forwarded by the complainant is that the fire caught the refrigerator due to the manufacture defect. Both parties admitted that the incident occurred during warranty period and both parties produced warranty card of the refrigerator and marked Ext. A2 and Ext. B4 respectively.
9. According to the complainant the opposite parties are responsible for the damage of refrigerator due to fire as it was a result of manufacture defect. But in the version and in affidavit it is submitted by the third opposite party that the damage caused due to fire that got burnt fridge but the source and origin of fire which caused damage to the fridge was from external source and not from inside. In order to substantiate the claim the third opposite party depended upon, photographs of the burnt refrigerator along with investigation report and analysis report. Ext. B2 (series) documents included the photographs of the burnt refrigerator and Ext. B2 analytical report are collected by the engineer of the third opposite party and technician of the second opposite party . So analysis report of the burnt refrigerator was prepared by the qualified engineer of the third opposite party and so there need not be required further expert evidence for adjudication of the matters. As per the evidence available on record it can be seen that the smoke was coming out of the refrigerator. The third opposite party reiterated that fire caught from external source. But in the analysis report external source is not explained properly . It can be found that due to any technical failure or defect in manufacture of the product fire spark may originate from any spot and can create fire pattern. The damage of refrigerator due to fire is admitted by both side and it happened during warranty period of the Refrigerator. The plug and the electrical supply code wire connected with the power socket is the external parts of the refrigerator. But analysis report did not disclose about electric supply code wire and plug used for the functioning of the refrigerator. More over compressor and electrical connector of the refrigerator was not taken for further examination. Some parts of the refrigerator was seen as intact that doesn’t means those parts are defectless. It is also admitted by the both parties that refrigerator was kept in the kitchen. If the fire was originated from outside of the refrigerator, definitely there could have found fire pattern in the kitchen also. But no damage caused to the kitchen for belongings of kitchen as per Ext. B2 (series) and Ext. B3 series documents.
10. In this case, the second opposite party is the service provider of the third opposite party . The second opposite party sent a letter to the complainant stating the reason for damage of the refrigerator and marked the letter as Ext. A2 document and the same letter also produced by third opposite party and marked as Ext. B5 document. But the second opposite party did not file version and affidavit. The evidence of the second opposite party would have been turned the best evidence in this proceedings. ut did not turn up. The version of the first opposite party, who is the dealer of the third opposite party supported the case of the complainant. The first opposite is more conversant with the ground reality of the case. So the contention of the third opposite party that the fire caused from external source cannot be taken in to account. It can be concluded that damage caused to the refrigerator is exclusively due to as a result of defect in manufacture of the refrigerator by the third opposite party. So the third opposite party is alone liable for the damage.
The incidental happened during the period of warranty and the complainant and his family members had a miraculous escape to save their lives, especially at midnight time it can be seen that the complainant approached the opposite parties to redress his grievances. But his efforts became futile. So this Commission need to consider the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant in adjudicating the matter. In the light of the above findings the Commission allows the complaint as prayed .
- The third opposite party is directed to replace the same model of the refrigerator or refund Rs.20,550/- as the cost of the refrigerator to the complainant.
- The third opposite party is directed to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant .
- The third opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- as the cost of transportation of the refrigerator to the complainant.
- The third opposite party is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as the cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
The third opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of this order, failing which the entire amount shall bear 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till realisation .
Dated this 5th day of August , 2022.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Member
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1to A3
Ext.A1:Copy of invoice No.937 dated 21/01/2019 issued by the first
opposite party to the complainant.
Ext.A2: Copy of letter dated 05/09/2019 issued by the second
opposite party to the complainant.
Ext A3: Copy of warranty card issued by the first opposite party to
the complainant.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B5
Ext.B1: Power of attorney issued by the third opposite party in
favour of Mr. Sandeep Sahijwam, General Manager/ PL & CDRF (Employee ID
10593037) to defend the case before the Commission .
Ext.B2: (series) are the copy of the investigation report along with photographs
(26 pages) taken by the third opposite party at the time inspection
of damaged refrigerator .
Ext.B3: (series) are copyies of analysis report produced by the third
opposite party (10 pages).
Ext.B4: Copy of warranty card of the refrigerator.
Ext.B5: Copy of the letter dated 05/09/2019 sent by the second Opposite party
to the complainant.
Mohandasan K., President
PreethiSivaraman C., Mem
Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member
