Complaint filed on: 04-04-2019
Disposed on: 03-07-2020
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, TUMKUR
CC.No.72/2019
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JULY, 2020
PRESENT
SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER
Complainant: - Sri.Jagadish Punitha
S/o. J.V.Punitha,
Residing at Anugraha,
1st Main road, Gandhinagar,
Tumakuru
(By Advocate Sri.R.Nagesh Rao Gaikwad)
V/s
Opposite parties:- 1. Managing Director,
Franke Faber India Pvt. Ltd
No.1086/1/2, Nagar Road,
Sanaswadi, Tal Shirur,
Pune-412208
- M/s. Kitchen Soloution-17-18 GST, 1st Floor,
BH Road, Batawadi,
Tumakuru - 572103
(OP No.1-Authorized signatory
Sri.Venugopal.K.N)
(OP No.2-Exparte)
ORDER
SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT
This complainant has filed by Sri.Jagadish Punitha resident of Tumkur to direct the opposite parties (here in after called as Ops) to pay Rs.59,920=00 with interest for burnt of Chimney fixed in their Kitchen.
2. It is the case of complainant that the OP No.1 is the manufacturer of Kitchen solution under the name and style “Faber” and the OP No.2 is the authorized dealer of OP No.1. The complainant has purchased chimney Glassy, 3D T2s2 LTW BK on 24-7-2011 from the OP No.2 under the invoice No.107 for a sum of Rs.15,990/-. After purchase the chimney was installed on 24-11-17 by Technician of the company. Within few days of use one day flame has started to emanate from the chimney and got fire and within few minutes the entire chimney was burnt along with the Gas stove.The complainant with the help of public extinguished the fire but on account of fire the entire Kitchen became black as a result the complainant as sustained loss.
3. The complainant has informed OP No.2 with regard to mishap and on the next day a representative of the company came to the house of complainant and inspected the spot and took stock of the situation. After a week Technician of the company came from Bengaluru he too inspected the spot but did not give any report. Then the complainant got issued legal notice but the first OP gave untenable replay stating that due to negligence in usage and non maintenance on time chimney got fire. There was no defect in chimney and the said incident was due to negligence on the part of complainant. The first opposite party was assured to replace the product at free of cost. It is further case of complainant that he has no interest to take product of the OP since the mishap has created fear in his mind. Hence, this complainant.
4. The first OP after the service of notice appeared through its authorized representative and filed written version admitting that this OP is manufacturer and supplier of Chimney and OP No.2 is the authorized dealer for selling its product at Tumkur. The opposite party further admitted that the complainant had purchased a Chimney from the OP No.2. The said incident had taken place due to negligence and non maintenance of Chimney from time to time by the complainant. It is the case of OP No.1 that there was no defect in the Chimney as such there is no deficiency in service on its part. This opposite party is ready for replacement of Chimneys at free of cost. The OP is not responsible for the damages caused since the incident was happened due to negligence in usage and non maintenance by complainant.
5. The OP No.2 has refused to receive the notice sent by this forum hence, it is placed expert.
6. The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and produced Annexure 1 to 12. On behalf of OP No.1 its authorized representative Mr.Venugopal K.N filed affidavit in lieu of evidence.
7. We have heard the oral arguments advance by learned counsel for the complainant whereas OP No.1 and its representative was remind absent and the points that would arise for determination are as under.
- Whether the complainant proves that the Chimney sold by the manufacturer OP No.1 through OP No.2 was defective?
- Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?
- Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1:In the affirmative.
Point No.2: In the partly affirmative
for the below
REASONS
9. Point No.1 and 2: The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there was no space for storage of oil in Chimney to get fire. There is no substance in the contention of OP No.1 that the complainant was negligent in usage and maintenance of Chimney. The OP No.1 has admitted the fact that it is the manufacturer of Chimney and it was sold by OP No.2 on 24-11-2011 for Rs.15,990/- under invoice No.107. The OP No.1 has not disputed issue of Annexure No.1 legal notice dated 1-1-2019 to the opposite party. It is not disputed that the OP No.1 has given reply dated 29-1-2019 under Annexure 4. The complainant has produced 5 Photos under Annexure 5 which indicate the Picture of burnt Chimney, stove beneath burnt chimney and ceiling fan in the Kitchen portion. The OP No.1 has not disputed brunt of the Chimney on 8-10-2018.
10. It is the specific defense of OP No.1 that due to negligence in usage and non maintenance of Chimney from the date of purchase the said mishap was occurred after ten months from the date of purchase that itself shows that there is no defect in the Chimney. It is admitted by OP No.1 that the said product has life time warranty. The opposite party has not produced manual of the product to know that the complainant shall maintain the Chimney regularly without default. If the OP No.1 has produced the manual containing clause and condition to show that the purchaser shall maintain the Chimney on time, or once since 6 months or year. The burden is on the opposite party to show that due to negligence in usage and non maintenances on time the mishap was occurred. Thus the OP No.1 has failed to prove its defense that the product has not maintained regularly by the complainant. The said incident has taken place within a year from the date of purchase though it has life time warranty as such it proves that the product manufactured and sold by the opposite parties was defective. Therefore, the OP No.1 shall liable to reimburse cost of the Chimney along with other expenses.
11. Though the OP No.1 has assured to replace the product but the complainant has lost faith in the product of the OP as such the OP No.1 shall reimburse the cost of the product and other expenses. The complainant has asked for cost of the product, Aluminum exhaust worth Rs.1,000/-, LPG Gas worth of Rs. 5,220/-, insurance premium amount Rs.1,000/- , paint and painting charges Rs.3,610/-, Photo and postal expenses of Rs.1,000/-, cost of ceiling fan of Rs.1,600/-, cost of the legal notice worth Rs.3,000/-, suffering, pain and agony Rs.25,000/-. The complainant has produced bills for purchase of paint and other materials. The amount asked for pain, suffering and agony is on higher side as such the complainant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.25,000/-. The opposite party shall liable to pay Rs.45,000/- to the complainant for the said incident with interest from the date of complainant till payment. For the above reasons, we proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
The complainant filed by Sri.Jagadish Punitha is partly allowed directing the OP No.1 and 2 shall jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.45,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 8 per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment.
It is further ordered that the OP No.1 and 2 shall pay litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order otherwise, it carries interest at the rate of 8 per annum from the date of filing of complaint till the date of payment.
Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.
(Directed to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pounced in the open forum on this the 3rd day of July 2020.)
LADY MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
LN/
