BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 12/03/2012

Date of Order : 21/12/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 150/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The complainant purchased a Faber Heat Kraft built in Gas Hob and Chimney from the 2^nd opposite party on 22-11-2010 for Rs. 14,464/- for using it in his newly constructed house. One year warranty has been provided for the gas hob, by the 1^st opposite party the manufacturer. While so, fire was noticed from underneath of a burner on 07-09-2011 and the matter was brought to the notice of the 1^st opposite party. A technician visited the house and repaired the stove on 09-09-2011. Subsequently on 24-09-2011, fire broke out from the stove. The fire erupted from inside the stove. The fire caused extensive damages. The microwave, water purifier, induction cooker, fans, electrical items, hob and chimney, kitchen slabs cupboards, windows, tiles and utensils inside the kitchen were totally damaged. The civil structure was also got damaged. The fire force people came for damage control. The house of the complainant was 5 months old at the time of the incident. The fire occurred due to the manufacturing defect of the gas hob and other accessories supplied by the opposite parties. The fire originated from inside the right top corner of the stove. The rubber tube was not damaged and that would show that the fire was not originated from outside. The complainant suffered huge financial loss, hardships and mental agony due to the supply of the defective gas hob. The complainant spent Rs. 1,13,754/- for the renovation of his kitchen. He purchased a new chimney and hob by paying Rs. 18,000/-. He purchased a microwave oven, fans, lights, water purifier, crystal wares, water purifier, etc. by paying Rs. 19,000/-. Altogether, he spent Rs. 1,50,754/- as an aftermath of the fire broke out from the stove. The complainant and his family members were put to severe mental agony and fear due to the fire. Though the matter was brought to the notice of the opposite parties on several occasions, nothing was done by them to redress the grievance of the complainant. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,50,754/- from the opposite parties, which he spent for renovating the kitchen and for purchasing kitchen appliances. He is also entitled for Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and hardships along with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite parties is as follows :-

On 22-11-2010, the complainant purchased a Faber Heat Kraft hob from the 2^nd opposite party which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party with one year warranty. The hob is an advanced form of gas stove mainly consisting of three burners each having different size. It also includes an auto ignition generator, a spark plug, a micro switch assembly and a gas stove. The appliance is fixed into the dig out portion in the kitchen slab and so the burner portion would project outside the kitchen slab. The appliance is connected to the gas system by a rigid metal pipe. A chimney is also fixed above the appliance. For electrical connection of the appliance it is connected to the rating plate to the cable and connect it to suitable socket. The warranty does not cover defects resulting from accidents. The service expert of the opposite parties did not repair the appliance on 09-09-2011 as claimed by the complainant. The bursting at the kitchen of the complainant was not due to the manufacturing defect of the hob. As per the report of the Fire and Rescue Service, the reasons for the incident was due to electrical short circuit. The opposite parties are not responsible for any of the reliefs as sought for in the complaint. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A9 were marked on his side. The witness for the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,50,754/- which he had spent for renovating the kitchen and for purchasing kitchen appliances?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. one lakh and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point No. i. :- It is not in dispute that on 22-11-2010, the complainant purchased a gas hob and chimney from the 2^nd opposite party, which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party at a price of Rs. 14,464/- evident from Ext. A1 retail invoice. According to the complainant, due to the manufacturing defect of the gas hob on 24-09-2011, fire originated from it and extensive damages were caused to the kitchen and kitchen appliances to the tune of Rs. 1,50,757/-. The opposite parties refuted the averments of the complainant and contended that the incident was not caused due to any manufacturing defect of the gas hob and on the contrary, it was due to electrical short circuit. They maintain that such an incident is not covered under the warranty offered to the appliance. The learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently relied on the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission :-

1. The Manager, TatA Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Bachchi Ram Dangwal and Anr. 2010 (2) CPR 13 (NC).

2. Superintending Engineer (Elec.) MESCOM, O & M Circle & Anr. Vs. Sri Krishna Poojary & Anr. 2012 (1) CPR 335 (NC).

6. Admittedly, no expert opinion or evidence is on record to show that the untoward incident was caused due to the manufacturing defect of the gas hob manufactured and supplied by the opposite parties. Apart from the oral testimony of the complainant, Ext. A5 the report of the Fire and Rescue Department is the only documentary evidence to show the reasons for the unfortunate incident, which happened on 24-09-2011 at the kitchen of the complainant's house. Ext. A5 would show that the inference of the incident was electrical short circuit.

7. It is pertinent to note that the complainant or his family members were not present at the time of the incident. Moreover, the gas hob had not been working at the time of the accident. PW1 deposed that the gas hob would become functional only when the electrical connection is switched on and then the Knob of the gas hob is turned on. That means, the electric connection to the gas hob was switched off at the time of the fire incident. In the absence of any convincing and cogent evidence legally, we are not to fasten the liability of the fire incident on the opposite parties, especially when nothing is forthcoming on the part of the complainant to controvert Ext. A5 showing the reason for the incident. Indisputably, the complainant is to carry the ball in proving the liability of the opposite parties, beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt in which he fails. In view of the above, the inevitable conclusion in this case is only to reject the contention of the complainant, especially in view of the decision cited by the learned counsel for the opposite parties. The complaint is dismissed hence. Ordered accordingly.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of December 2013.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========