Kerala

StateCommission

CC/15/142

A A JOSEPH - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S LG ELECTRONICS INDIA PVT LTD - Opp.Party(s)

V BIJU JOSEPH

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

C.C. NO.142/15

JUDGMENT DATED 29/4/2016

 

PRESENT:

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATH ALI     :        PRESIDENT

SHRI. V.V. JOSE                                      :        MEMBER

 

COMPLAINANT:

            A.A. Joseph, S/o. Abraham,

Arakkathara House, Chembumukku (PO),

Chembumukku Desom, Vazhakkala Village,

Kanayannur Taluk, Ernakulam District, Kochi-682 030.

(By Adv:  V. Biju Joseph)                    

                        Vs

OPPOSITE PARTIES:

1.  M/s. L.G Electronics India (P) Ltd.,

Corporate Office, Plot No.51, Udyog Vihar,

Surajpur Kasna Road, Surajpur, Greater Noida-201 306

– Rep: by its Chairman and Managing Director.

 

2. M/s. L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd.,

Zonal Office/Regional Office, A-11, 2^nd Avenue,

Fatima Tower, Anna Nagar West, Chennai-600 040

– Rep: by its Zonal/Regional Manager.

 

3.  M/s. L.G. Electronics India (P) Ltd., 34/565 B,
1.  

 Padivattom, Edappally, Cochin-682 024,

•  

 

4.  M/s. Bismi Appliances, Kaloor, Kochi-17.

 

JUDGMENT

SHRI. V.V. JOSE  :  MEMBER

          This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  The complainant is a business man.  On 16/03/2011 the complainant purchased a refrigerator from the IV opposite party manufactured by the 1^st opposite party.  The refrigerator bearing identification No.LG REF GC L 217 BTJV(FF567 DIOS TITANIUM FINISH) and Compressor No.FC-140 NEM 220V/240 V, 50 HZ was purchased from the IV opposite party for an amount of Rs.69,000/-.  On next day of purchase the service engineers of I and IV opposite party installed the unit at the work area of the complainants house.  The safety standards were not kept satisfied by the opposite parties according to the complainants.  From the very installation the refrigerator showed intermittently extra ordinary sound used to come out from the closed unit coupled with shivering and jerking.  On information the service engineers of I and III opposite parties visited the complainant’s house for examining the refrigerator.  But they left without rectifying the defects.  They advised that the defect is within the closed unit of the refrigerator and same can be repaired by experts and advised the complainant, that he can use the unit, even though with reduced cooling effect.  According to the complainant in spite of repeated requests the opposite party did not rectified the refrigerator with the help of expert.

          2.  On 7/9/2014 at about 6.30 am complainant noticed smoke was emitting from the refrigerator.  Complainant opened the door after switching off the unit to remove food articles from the refrigerator.  Fire emanated from the refrigerator with an explosive sound. The fire was uncontrollable, spread and caught hold of the outside of the refrigerator.  The fire spread in the work area and nearby rooms and destroyed things kept therein.  The complainant suffered serious burns all over the body.  The ELCB automatically went off due to the explosion.  The explosion and consequential fire caused damage to the building, destroyed household articles, utensils, water purifier, two mixer grinders, dress materials etc. kept in the work area and nearby rooms.  The door and windows and wiring of the work area were also destroyed.  The painting and furniture were also damaged.  Household articles like televisions, ceiling fans, mixer grinders, pressure cookers, air conditioners, dress materials, beds, bed spreads pillows etc.  were also damaged.  All these were happened due to the manufacturing defect of opposite party I and in experience and lack of expertise of the Technicians of the opposite parties.  This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party 1 to 4.   Complainant was hospitalized for burns inflicted by explosion and fire, for many weeks.  He was forced to keep away from others due to the disfiguration.  His business also affected.  He spent Rs.2,19,220/- as hospital expenses and Rs.1,35,000/- as allied expenses.  His treatment is continued even now also.  He needs a plastic surgery for curing the disfiguration and loss of appearance which may cost Rs.2,25,000/-.  He suffered mental and body pain and sufferings.

          3.  The complainant has caused a lawyer notice to the opposite party on 26/5/2015.  But due to mistake the date of accident was shown as 8/9/2014 instead of 7/9/2014.  Opposite party III has sent a reply raising false and untenable contentions.  In the above circumstances complainant is approaching this Commission for a compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/- in various heads from the opposite parties.

          4. After admitting the complaint, notice was served all the four opposite parties.  They did not appear they were called absent and set exparte on 29/2/2016.

          5.  Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked sixty documents Exbt: P₁ to P₆₀ to prove his case.  Opposite parties 1-3 are manufactures and opposite party 4 is the dealer.  Since the allegation is against manufactures as manufacturing defect, the dealer cannot be conferred with any liability. On the affidavit he has repeated the pleadings raised in the complaint.  Complaint has proved his case.  The relief claimed by the complainant is Rs.1,00,00,000/- (One Crore Only) as damages with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 7/9/2014 ie. the date of alleged explosion.  The amount claimed is on various heads as follows:

Sl.No.	Particulars	Rs.
1	Medical expense incurred by complainant	2,19,220
2	Towards body pain and suffering	45,00,000
3	Towards mental pain and sufferings	15,00,000
4	Loss sustained to business	6,00,000
5	Towards loss of income	1,50,000
6	Towards loss of wearing apparels	4,00,000
7	Towards loss of utensils, house hold articles, water purifier, mixer grinder, cooking range, television, air conditions	12,56,300
8	Towards damage happened to residential buildings including wooden door and windows.	17,32,500

 

 

9	Towards allied expenses	1,35,000
10	Cost of refrigerators lost by fire	69,000
	Total	1,05,62,020
	Claim limited	1,00,00,000

 

Normally when this case is considered ex-parte the entire claim ought to have been allowed.  But in this case the refrigerator is more than three years old and in use with the complainant.  As an exemption we thought it is necessary to consider the various heads of claims and its proof and reasonability.  Complainant has produced 49 documents Exbts: P5 – P53 towards medical expenses (head 1) incurred by him.  The sum total of the above bills as per the head of claim medical expenses incurred is shown as Rs.2,19,220/-.  No further medical bills are produced for treatment after 29/9/2014.  The claim of medical expenses are supported by bills and hence admissible.  Towards damage happened to residential building including wooden doors and windows complainant has claimed Rs.17,32,500/- (head 8).  Towards loss of utensil and household articles, water purifier, mixer grinders cooking range, television, air condition etc. (head 7) Rs.12,56,300/-  is claimed.  In addition to this towards loss of wearing apparels and allied expenses (head 6 & 9) Rs.5,35,000/- is claimed.  The cost of refrigerator claimed as Rs.69,000/- (Head 10).          To support these claims the only available record before us is only       Exbt: A54 survey report.  This survey report is dated 25/7/2015.  The surveyor was engaged by the complainant at his cost.  The surveyor claims that he has inspected the site on 8/9/2014.  He has mentioned that, complaint has put forward a claim of Rs.29,88,800/- towards the heads of loss mentioned on five heads above, (heads 6,7,8,9 and 10).   The report appears to have been given ten months after the incident.  He has further stated that the inspection has conducted the premises of the insured only.  He has remarked that he has considered police, fire, electrical inspectorate reports.  Based on the report of electrical inspectorate the fire is not due to electrical short circuit.  The Surveyor has assessed Rs.16,80,000/- as total loss.  We have also gone through Exbts: A4 document.  The fire force in their fire report No.116/14 dated 7/9/2014 has suggested a loss of         One Lakh to the building and Rs.50,000/- to other items.  Exbt: A4 and A54 are the documents produced to prove the claims of five heads above.  The surveyor has included the cost of refrigerator also to arrive the total loss of Rs.16,80,000/-.  In the absence any evidence contrary to this, we are inclined to admit the total loss certified by the surveyor amounting to Rs.16,80,000/-.  Regarding the other claims (heads 2,3,4 and 5) amounting to Rs.67,50,000/- no any supporting proof or document has been adduced by the complainant to substantiate this claim.  Hence the claim of Rs.67,50,000/- is not admissible and hence rejected.  It is not clear whether

The complainant has made any claim under insurance or received any compensation.  However in the interest of justice complainant is also entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.  In short the complainant is entitled to a total claim of Rs.19,99,220/-  ie. Rs.2,19,220/- towards medical expenses (Head-I) Rs.16,80,000/- towards Heads 6,7,8,9 and 10 and Rs.1,00,000/- towards Heads 2,3,4 and 5.  The complainant is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as cost of this proceedings.

           In the result, complaint is partly allowed.  Complainant is entitled to recover Rs.19,99,220/- from opposite parties 1 to 3 together with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of complaint ie. 25/11/2015 till realization together worth Rs.10,000/- from opposite party 1-3 ordered accordingly.

 

 

V.V. JOSE          :        MEMBER

 

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATH ALI      :        PRESIDENT

 

Sa.

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                       DISPUTES REDRESSAL

 COMMISSION,

SISUVIHAR LANE,

VAZHUTHACAUD   

                           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

 

 

C.C. NO.142/15

JUDGMENT DATED 29/4/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.