AVM J. RAJENDRA, AVSM, VSM (RETD.) MEMBER

1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 12.09.2014 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.42 of 2014, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Appellant herein) was dismissed.

2.      For the sake of Convenience, the parties in the present matter being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission. Dr. Gurdip Singh Gandhok is the Complainant. M/s. Hitachi Home & Solutions India Ltd. & Utility Trading Engineers Pvt. Ltd. are referred to as the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 (OPs).

3.      Brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2010, the Complainant purchased a Hitachi refrigerator, manufactured by OP-1, from OP-2, for a sum of Rs. 48,300/-. The refrigerator came with a one-year warranty and an additional five-year warranty on the compressor.

4.      On 20.05.2013, at about 3:45 PM when there was no one at the residence of the Complainant, a blast occurred in the refrigerator, causing it to explode into pieces. The explosion resulted in damage to all household articles and doors. The blast also caused cracks in the walls, roof, and floor of the house. The explosion led to the dispersion of a thick layer of carbon throughout the house.

5.      The Complainant promptly informed the OPs about the incident through an e-mail dated 20.05.2013. Additionally, he requested the State Electricity Department to inspect the electrical system to determine if there was any fluctuation or power cut on 20.5.2013. Vide reply dated 25.06.2013, the Electricity Department confirmed that the internal wiring of the house was in order, and the fire did not occur due to electricity-related issues. Further, the Electricity Department stated that they did not receive any complaint of electricity supply fluctuation in the area on 20.05.2013. The Complainant also sought information from the Fire Department in Chandigarh, which indicated that the probable cause of the fire was a blast in the refrigerator's compressor.

6.      Following this incident, the Complainant served a legal notice to the Opposite Parties (OPs) on 10.08.2013. In response, the OPs sent their engineers from Ahmedabad and Thailand to inspect the refrigerator, without disclosing their identities. The OPs stated that the fire was caused by external factors and offered to replace the refrigerator, which the Complainant refused.

7.      To substantiate the claim, the Complainant got the premises inspected by Engineer Shri RR Garg and Shri Rajan Mittal. In their reports, both the engineers concurred that the fire originated from a manufacturing defect in the compressor and not from any external source. Additionally, Shri RD Sharma, a Chartered Engineer, estimated the cost of damage to the house to be Rs. 70,67,000/-.

8.      The Complainant claimed that the blast in the refrigerator was caused due to manufacturing defect in the compressor, leading to significant damage to household articles and the house and in substantial financial loss to him. The house was left uninhabitable due to the damage and health risks, requiring major repairs to make it habitable. As per him, the OPs actions amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.

9.      Being aggrieved due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint (No. 42 of 2014) before the State Commission with the following prayer

I. To pay an amount of Rs.70,67,000/- required for reconstruction of the house.

II. To pay an amount of Rs. 9,46,875/- towards the damaged furniture such as dining table, sofa, beds, dining chairs, side tables. center table, mattresses,

III. To pay an amount of Rs. 2,37,000/- towards the CCTV Cameras and controls, theft alarm and control damaged due to incident.

IV. To refund an amount of Rs.48,300/- towards the cost of refrigerator.

V. To pay an amount of Rs. 75,600/- towards the cost of LCD Sony damaged in the incident.

VI. To pay an amount of Rs. 5,350/- towards the printer mode HP CNC JC07329 damaged in the incident.

VII. To pay an amount of Rs.1,50,500/- for the cost of curtains destroyed due to incident.

VIII To pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the clothes damaged in the incident.

IX. To pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards fans, carpet, music system, VCR, DVD, Microwave, AC, Heating Blowers, Computer Tables, Chairs, Towels, bed sheets. Comforters, Cushions, Blankets, Kitchen Gadgets, Antique items and other household items.

X. To pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.

XI. To pay an amount of Rs. 1,00, 000/- towards the litigation cost.

XII. To pay the amount under clause (i) to (x) along with 18% interest from the date of loss till realization.

XIII. Any other relief as this Hon'ble Commission deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

10.    The OP No. 1 denied the claim of the Complainant, stating that the fire incident was not caused by a blast in the compressor, as alleged, but by external factors beyond their control. They promptly attended to the alleged incident and their service engineers found the compressor and gas pipes intact, with no damage even after the alleged explosion. They further sent technical experts/engineers namely Shri T Mohan Krishanan from Ahmedabad and Takashi Shigetomi from Thailand on 12.09.2013 to investigate the cause of the fire in the refrigerator. Their observations were as follows:

(i) It is observed that the start position of ignition was lower part of the bock/rear side of the refrigerator near the plug socket at the wall.

(ii) That the fire started from the drain pan placed above the compressor near the plug socket and then spreading fire to the body of the refrigerator.

(iii) Electrical component such as compressor, capacitor, OLP (overload protector) and starter was in OK condition. No ignition from these components have been observed for the reasons:

 a) The compressor is made of steel.

 b) Capacitor is covered by G.I. sheet cover.

 c) OLP and starter are covered by flame retardant material.

iv)      The cloth cover placed on the top of the refrigerator could have dropped on the power supply plug (starting point of fire) which could be one of the reasons for aggravation of the fire".

11.    The OP-1 also denied the Complainant's claim, stating that the fire incident in the refrigerator was not due to any defect in the compressor as alleged. They suggested possible reasons for the fire, such as short circuit in the plug, voltage fluctuation, cloth falling on the socket, wear and tear of wires due to rats cockroaches menace etc. As per them, the compressor was not burnt and the fire originated from the power socket, indicating external causes. OP No. 1 asserted that the refrigerator was functioning fine for over 3 years with no complaints. The alleged loss was not covered under warranty, and the Complainant was trying to extract a hefty sum from them. They denied that the entire product was under warranty on the date of the incident. They further refuted the claim of sooty dust, stating that the soot was created due to the burning of the polyurethane foam insulation of the refrigerator. They denied the claims made by the Electricity and Fire Depts. They asserted absence of any manufacturing defect in the refrigerator. OP No. 1 denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. They refuted all other averments made in the Complainant's claim, considering them false and baseless.

12.    The OP-2 in its written version submitted that the Commission lacked jurisdiction to handle the complaint and that the complainant approached them with unclean hands. The OP-2 admitted the purchase of the refrigerator but stated that OP-2, being the authorized dealer of OP-1, was not responsible for any manufacturing defects. The OP-2 highlighted its experience in selling refrigerators without any previous customer complaints. Upon receiving information about the incident, OP-2 promptly sent service engineers to investigate, and concluded that the alleged fire incident resulted from external factors, not a compressor blast as claimed. The OP-2 asserted that they provided satisfactory service and did not engage in unfair trade practices, denying the rest of the allegations as false.

13.    The State Commission dismissed the complaint with following observation: -

“22 In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that, in case, the fire had broken due to blast in the compressor of the refrigerator, then the same would have suffered some damage, but as observed by the Engineers of Opposite Party No.1, the compressor and the gas pipes were intact after the alleged explosion. In view of the above sequence of events, we are of the considered view that the complainant failed to prove, on record, that the fire broke out due to the alleged defective compressor of the refrigerator. There is no authentic and corroborative evidence on record to conclude that the compressor of the refrigerator, in question, suffered from manufacturing defect and the same was the cause of the alleged incident of fire in the house of the complainant. As per the document i.e., Material Safety Data Sheet of International Institute of Refrigeration, marked as Annexure 'X’, the auto-ignition temperature in relation to the product in question, is more than 750°C. This data is globally recognized. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the higher temperature as mentioned above, which is the requirement of blast/burning of the compressor, could be prevalent at the site of the incident i.e. premises of the complainant. This fact is further fortified from the affidavits of the experts of Opposite Party No.1 who specifically stated that when they examined the refrigerator, in question, it was found that the compressor and the capacitor of the same (refrigerator), were intact. Otherwise also, had there been any manufacturing defect in the compressor of the refrigerator, a prudent man like the complainant must have made a complaint to the Opposite Parties, in this regard, prior to the incident. Surprisingly, there is no document in the shape of the complaint or e-mail, on the part of the complainant, to prove that the compressor of the refrigerator was allegedly defective prior to the incident or that the refrigerator was not functioning properly. It is not the case of the complainant that the refrigerator, in question, was giving any problem prior to the alleged incident. Thus, it is held that there was no manufacturing defect in the compressor and, as such, the fire incident did not take place on account of blast in the same (compressor). Thus, the complainant failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties.

23. For the reasons recorded above, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.”

14.    Being aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission, the Complainant (Appellant herein) filed this present Appeal no. 1172 of 2014 with the following prayer:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed, and the impugned order dated 12.09.2014 may kindly be set aside and the complaint be allowed in the interest of justice.

And/ Or

Any other relief may kindly be granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

15.    In the Present Appeal, the Appellant mainly raised the following issues:

a)        The State Commission failed to consider that the affidavit of Shri Sanjeev Kumar, presented as evidence in support of the written statement, cannot be relied upon as he never visited the premises, and there no resolution from the Board of Directors authorizing him to sign the affidavit.

b)        The State Commission ignored the evidence that the compressor and gas tubes attached to it were destroyed, broken, and burnt. Even if it is presumed that it was intact, there is no evidence to suggest the presence of gas and oil, indicating a leakage and manufacturing defect.

c)        The State Commission ignored material evidence showing no fault with the electricity on the date of loss. The Appellant asserted that if there was electricity oversupply, the devices such as fuse, MCB or meter would have been affected, and the engineer's affidavit failed to mention the condition of compressor and gas pipe after the accident.

d)        The State Commission overlooked the fact that the entire refrigerator was burnt, but the power plug remained intact. The appellant believes that the starting point of the fire was not the plug socket, and the Commission relied on assumptions rather than material evidence.

e)        The State Commission failed to consider a report of an electric engineer submitted by the Appellant, which showed that the internal wires in the meter box were not burnt, contradicting the opposite parties reasoning.

f)         The State Commission ignored the expert opinion of the appellant's engineers, arguing that one engineer was not qualified to give his opinion due to being a Science Graduate and the qualifications of the other engineer were not disclosed, rendering their opinions incompetent.

g)        The State Commission failed to address the fact that the expert opinion presented by the appellant was not countered or rebutted by the engineer appointed by the respondents who visited and inspected the premises.

16.    The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant reiterated the facts and grounds of appeal in his written argument, emphasizing that the State Commission ignored crucial evidence and relied on assumptions, resulting in an unjust decision. The State Commission completely overlooked material evidence presented in the form of reports by Engineers Shri RR Garg and Shri Rajan Mittal. These reports remain unrebutted, and the reasoning provided by the Respondents does not counter them effectively. Moreover, the document submitted by the Respondents contradicts their own argument as it indicates that the compressor used by the Respondents is highly flammable. However, the State Commission chose to disregard this important information. He further submitted that while the Appellant/ Complainant purchased refrigerator bearing model No. R-Z530AND7KX-1 (2 Door, 530 LTS), the document relied upon by the Respondents pertains to a different refrigerator model, specifically R-Z530AND7KX-1 (435L 2D mechanic model) which is flammable and warming rating is 1300 times higher than carbon dioxide. Overall, the Appellant's Counsel asserts that the State Commission's failure to consider this material evidence and the discrepancies in the documents presented by the respondents.

17.    The Learned Counsel for the Respondents reiterated the facts averred in their written version and affidavit of evidence filed before the State Commission. He vehemently argued that there was no proof of a blast in the compressor of the refrigerator and that external factors were likely at play in causing the alleged fire incident. He asserted that the Complainant's claims lacked substantial evidence and were aimed at seeking unjustifiable compensation.

18.    We have heard the learned Counsel for both the Parties and have gone through the entire pleadings and material on record.

19.    The case of the Complainant/Appellant is that the Complainant/ Appellant purchased a Hitachi refrigerator on 27.02.2010. While the refrigerator was functioning normally, there was a sudden blast that happened after 3 years, causing extensive damage to the household and the house's structure. The Appellant alleged that the blast was due to a manufacturing defect in the compressor of the refrigerator. As a result, the house became uninhabitable, requiring significant repairs. The Appellant has held the OPs, the manufacturer and authorized dealer of the refrigerator, responsible for the defect and sought to hold them liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. The State Commission in its Order dated 12.09.2014 has observed the following:

“20.     Once the Opposite Parties specifically denied that there was no manufacturing defect in the compressor or that the fire did not take place due to the manufacturing defect in the compressor then the burden to prove the same lay on the Complainant, which he miserably failed to prove by leading any cogent and conclusive evidence in this regard. The opinion given by the experts produced by the complainant in their affidavits is based on mere presumptions and conjectures and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the same.

21. The perusal of the report doted 19.07.2013 of the Electricity Department, placed, on record, by the complainant merely shows that no complaint of fluctuations in the electricity supply was received on 20.05.2013 from the area. In the said report, no exact cause of fire in the house of the complainant was mentioned and, as such, no reliance can be placed upon the same. Similarly, in the report dated 26.06.2013 of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh produced by the complainant, it was merely mentioned that the probable cause of fire was blast in the compressor of the fridge but it was not mentioned in the said report as to how it came to this conclusion that the probable cause of fire was blast in the compressor and, as such, the aforesaid report without any conclusive and authentic proof regarding the exact cause of fire in the house of the complainant cannot be relied upon credence.”

20.    The incident involving fire generated from the refrigerator at the residence of the Appellant in Chandigarh at about 1545 Hrs on 20.05.2013 had resulting in the refrigerator being gutted into flames and due to its impact and fumes the entire house got damaged and was rendered uninhabitable. Without doubt, this incident had occurred at a house where elderly people reside. No one was at home when the incident happened. May be, had someone been present and noticed the incident, the incident could have been averted or escalation could have been prevented. We have examined the report submit by Engineers Shri RR Garg and Shri Rajan Mittal as well as that of personnel from M/s Hitachi Home & Life Solution India Ltd viz. Shri. T Mohan Krishanan from Ahmedabad and Shri Takashi Shigetomi from Thailand who have been visited to the site of the incident on 12.09.2013 and inspected the premises. We have also carefully examined the photographs placed on record as well as other associated documents and reports pertaining to the fire incident. The photographs reveal that the entire refrigerator was burnt down and its fumes and the resultant dust deposits spread across in the house impacting the household furniture and fittings.

21.    On consideration of the inspection reports by the respective parties, this Commission vide Order dated 07.12.2015 appointed Shri Prabhakar Singh, Chief Engineer, CPWD, C-4, Tower No.8, New Moti Bagh, New Delhi to undertake inspection of the premises and terminals of the plug. However, as the Appellant was travelling abroad for medical treatment, the independent inspection by Shri Prabhakar Singh did not fructify. When repeatedly approached by the OPs for facilitating the same, the Appellant had stated that as number of inspections have already taken place, the Commission may proceed with the case on the basis of documentary evidence placed on record, in the interest of justice.

22.    The issue in question, however, is whether this incident occasioned at the residence of the Appellant in Chandigarh at about 1545 Hrs on 20.05.2013, which resulted in the refrigerator being gutted into flames, the entire house got damaged and was rendered uninhabitable, was on account of malfunctioning of the compressor. The evidence on record, including the photographs indicate that the compressor is visible in the same shape within the refrigerator remains. Even though its entire non-metallic components and contents were gutted into dust, conspicuously the structural integrity of the metallic portion of the refrigerator remained intact. This indicates that certain ignition had taken place leading to catching of fire and thereafter gradually the fire spread within resulting in burning down of the refrigerator, especially the non-metallic parts. Had there been any blast in the refrigerator, including that of the compressor, the refrigerator would have immediately and significantly lost its structural integrity, which is not the case.

23.    In view of the foregoing, there is no evidence of any blast/ explosion either in the compressor as claimed by the Complainant or in any other part of the refrigerator. Also, there is no evidence of manufacturing defect/malfunctioning of any part of the refrigerator which constituted the root cause of the fire to the said refrigerator and resultant alleged damages.

24.    In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered view that the Order of the State Commission does not suffer from any illegality and thus the Appeal is dismissed.

25.    There shall be no order as to costs.

26.    All pending Applications, if any, are disposed of accordingly.