Sri. Jacob Stephen (President): The complainant has filed this complaint before this Forum against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum. 2. The brief facts of this case is as follows: The complainant have purchased a Kenstar Washing Machine on 19.7.2003 from the third opposite party, manufactured by the first opposite party. As per the Users’ Manual and the opposite parties undertakings, when the washing programme is over, the machine should automatically stop. On 21.10.2005, while it was working, the whole machine was burnt and the fire spread to the neighbouring area of the machine and thereby caused heavy damages to the complainant. The following are the damages caused due to this incident. 1. Loss of cloths in the washing machine : Rs.12,000-00 2. Loss of other cloths kept in the bath room : Rs.15,000-00 3. Loss of bathroom tiles : Rs. 8,000-00 4. Loss of roof of bath room : Rs. 5,000-00 5. Damages of paintings of drawing room : Rs.15,000-00 6. Cost of washing machine : Rs.12,000-00 Total : Rs.67,000-00 3. The entire incident took place as a result of the failure of the automatic function of the washing machine. It is a manufacturing defect of the washing machine. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the aforesaid loss of Rs.67,000/- with cost of Rs.3,000/- along with compensation of Rs.7,500/- for the mental agony and sufferings. Notice for settling the claim of damage was issued to the opposite parties who refused to settle the claim. Hence this complaint. 4. The 1st and 2nd opposite parties filed their version with the following main contentions: 3rd and 4th opposite parties are sellers and not the agents of first and second opposite parties. The defect of the machine occurred due to the negligent use and maintenance by the complainant and due to the faulty wiring of the complainant’s house. The alleged damages to cloth, bathroom tiles, roof of bathroom, damage to drawing room and machine and damage for mental agony is also false. The machine was sold by the complainant on 19.7.2003. The warranty period was two years from the date of purchase. The incident took place on 21.10.05 and it is beyond warranty period. Hence the opposite parties are not liable for the complainant’s claim. Hence they pray for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost. 5. The 3rd and 4th opposite parties were exparte. 6. On the above pleadings, the following points were raised for consideration: (1) Whether the above complaint is maintainable before this Forum? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to get a relief as prayed for in the complaint? (3) Relief and Costs? 7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral evidence of the complainant who has been examined as PW1 and the documents, which are marked as Exts.A1 to A8 series on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant. The first and second opposite parties counsel cross-examined PW1 and they have not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. After closure of evidence, both sides heard. 8. Point No.1: The complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and dispute is a consumer dispute, which falls within the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, this complaint is maintainable before this Forum. 9. Points 2 to 3:- The complainant’s case is that the automatic washing machine purchased by him on 19.7.01 from the opposite parties catch fire on 21.10.05 while it was working. According to the complainant, the machine failed to stop automatically after the process of washing. This caused heavy damages to the complainant. Due to the said incident, the washing machine was totally destroyed. The cloths under washing, cloths kept in the bathroom, the tiles and roof of the bathroom and painting of the drawing room were destroyed and damaged. As a result of this, the complainant had sustained a total loss of Rs.67,000/-. The catching of fire to the washing machine was due to the manufacturing defect of the machine. The matter was intimated to the opposite parties with a demand for compensating the loss and damages caused to the complainant. The opposite parties denied the demand of the complainant. So he filed this complaint and prays for allowing an order for realizing an amount of Rs.67,000/- for the loss and damages caused to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.7,500/- for the mental agony and sufferings with a cost of Rs.3,000/-. 10. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit along with certain documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant has been examined as PW1 and documents produced by him were marked as Exts.A1 to A8 series. Ext.A1 is the bill dated 19.7.03 for Rs.12,000/- for purchasing Kenstar Washing Machine from Nandavanam Times. Ext.A2 is the GD Extract of Koipuram Police Station dated 10.11.05. Ext.A3 is the Certificate dated 25.10.05 from the Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section Office, Kumbanad. Ext.A4 is the Kenstar Washing Machine instruction guide and Ext.A4 (a) is the relevant portion in the Ext.A4 instruction guide. Ext.A5 is the photocopy of the Advocate Notice sent by the complainant. Ext.A6 is the photocopy of the reply notice dated 29.11.2005 sent by the opposite parties to the complainant’s Advocate. Ext.A7 is the negatives (10 in number) of Ext.A8 photographs and Ext.A8 series are the photographs of the room where the fire incident took place, taken after the fire incident took place. 11. On the other hand, the opposite parties contentions as per the version and cross examination is that the washing machine was purchased by the complainant on 19.07.2003 and the alleged incident took place on 20.10.2005. Their warranty is only for 2 years from the date of purchase and as such the incident took place after the warranty period. It is also contended that no complaints to the washing machine was reported within the said warranty period or even before the date of incident. So the allegation of manufacturing defect is not sustainable. According to the opposite parties, the above said incident might have been occurred due the improper/mishandling operation of the machine by the complainant. Therefore, the opposite parties are not liable or responsible to the damages caused to the complainant and hence they pray for dismissal of the complainant with their costs. 12. On a perusal of the deposition of PW1, it is seen that the fire incident occurred at the house of the complainant had not been witnessed by the complainant. It was also not witnessed by any one else. In cross-examination, PW1 deposed that “hmjnwKv sajo\v tISpv kw`hn¨t¸mÄ Rm³ ASp¯nÃmbncp¶p. I¯n¡cnªXn\ptijamWv ImWp¶Xv “. From this, it is very clear that the root cause of the alleged incident was not known to the complainant. However, the complainant’s allegation is that the washing machine got fire due to the manufacturing defect. But the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the alleged incident caused due to the manufacturing defect of the washing machine. Moreover, the complainant had no complaints to the working of the machine till the alleged incident. Moreover, evidence shows that the incident took place after the expiry of warranty period, so the complainant has to prove the manufacturing defect. Ext.A3 certificate issued by the Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Kumbanad alone is not sufficient for proving the complainant’s allegation of manufacturing defect. 13. Considering the nature of the allegations, expert evidence supporting the allegations is essential for taking a decision, which is lacking in this case. Ext.A2 is the copy of G.D. of Koipuram Police Station, which shows that they have directed the complainant to approach the Electrical Inspectorate for ascertaining the actual cause of the alleged incident. But the complainant had not availed the service of the Electrical Inspectorate, the competent authority, to find out the actual cause of the alleged incident. Instead, he approached a wiring licensee and the Asst. Engineer of Electrical Section, Kumbanad and obtained Ext.A3 certificate. The signatories of Ext.A3 are not competent to find out the cause of the alleged incident and Ext.A3 does not reveal any manufacturing defect to the washing machine. In the circumstances, the complainant failed to prove that the fire incident was due to the manufacturing defect of the washing machine and hence we do not find any deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. Since the manufacturing defect of the washing machine is not proved, the reliefs sought for in the complaint are not allowable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Declared in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of November, 2008. Jacob Stephen, (President) Smt. C. Lathika Bhai (Member) : Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : Appendix: Witness examined on the side of the complainant: PW1 : V.T. Thomas. Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant: A1 : bill dated 19.7.03 for Rs.12,000/- for purchasing Kenstar Washing Machine from Nandavanam Times. A2 : GD Extract of Koipuram Police Station dated 10.11.05. A3 : Certificate dated 25.10.05 from the Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section Office, Kumbanad. A4 : Kenstar Washing Machine Instruction Guide A4 : The relevant portion in the Ext.A4 instruction guide. A5 : Photocopy of the Advocate Notice sent by the complainant. A6 : Photocopy of the reply notice dated 29.11.2005 sent by the opposite parties to the complainant’s Advocate. A7 : Negatives (10 in number). A8 series : Photos. Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil. Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties : Nil.
......................Jacob Stephen
......................LathikaBhai
......................N.PremKumar | | 
