D.O.F:29/06/2020
D.O.O:10/04/2023
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KASARAGOD
CC.66/2020
Dated this, the 10th day of April 2023
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Sajeesh Philip (Chakko),
Animoottile (House), : Complainant
Malakkallu (P.O),
Kasaragod- 671532
(Adv. T.C. Narayanan)
And
- National Radio Electronics Cor.
Kottachery, Kanhangad
(Adv. K. Sanjayan Nambiar)
- VIDEOCON
TEKCARE India Private Ltd,: Opposite Parties
15 km Stone, Aurangabad -
Paithan Road Village, Chitegaon,
TalukPaithan , Aurangabad,
Pin- 431105,
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
The complaint is filed on the ground of service deficiency on the part of the opposite party.
The facts of this case in brief is as follows: The complainant purchased a Videocon Refrigerator on 01.08.2015 from the Opposite Party. The above refrigerator, which had 5 years warranty burst during night on 17.09.2019 and caused damages to the house and several house hold articles. Walls, doors, windows and tiles sustained crack. Mixi, induction cooker, T.V, kitchen furniture etc. are destroyed. Electrification equipment such as switch board, motor connection board, wires are also spoiled. Walls and ceilings and floorings became blackened due to smoke and burning. The complainant sustained a loss of Rs.2,25,000/-, due to the bursting of the refrigerator. The above incident was informed to the opposite party, but they did not come forward to compensate for the loss of the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed seeking remedy.
The opposite parties entered appearance through their counsel, who filed written version.
As per the version, the complaint is false, frivolous speculative and not maintainable in law. The opposite party admitted the purchase of refrigerator by the complainant on 01.08.2015. But they denied the contention that the refrigerator had a complete warranty of 5 years. The incident alleged as on 17.09.2019 is emphatically denied. The refrigerator or compressor would not burst as alleged. If any such incident happened, the same is not on account of any manufacturing defect of the product. The contentions that walls, doors, windows and tiles sustained crack and that Mixi, Induction cooker, T.V, kitchen furniture etc. are destroyed and that Electrification equipment such as switch board, motor connection board, wires are also spoiled and that walls and ceilings and floorings became blackened due to smoke and burnings and that the complainant sustained a loss of Rs.2,25,000/-.due to the busting of the refrigerator etc. are denied. It is denied that the complainant had intimated or lodged complaint with regard to the alleged incident. The complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The complainant is examined as PW-1 and the documents Ext.A1 to A7 marked. Ext.A1 is the copy of purchase bill dated 01.08.2015, Ext.A2 is the Warranty card, Ext A3 is the copy of News report, Ext.A4 is copy of Photographs, Ext A5 is the copy of the certificate issued by the Rajapuram Police, Ext.A6 is the copy of certificate issued by Village Officer, Malakkallu, Ext.A7 is the Bank Pass book of LissyChacko. Another witness, the Dist. Insurance Officer is examined as PW2 and document Ext.X1 and X1(A) are marked. During cross examination of the PW2, documents Ext.X1(B1), X1(B2), X1(B3)are also marked. Ext.X1 is the entire file of Fire Claim submitted by Lissy Chacko before Dist. Insurance Officer. Ext.X1 (A) is the Survey Report, Ext.X1(B1) is the claim form submitted by Lissy Chacko, Ext.X1(B2) is Estimate prepared by Arun Electricals Malakkallu, Ext.X1(B3)is the list prepared by Greenwood furniture Malakkallu.
Based on the pleadings of rival parties, the following issues are framed for consideration.
- Whether the damages to the house and house hold article are caused due to the bursting of the refrigerator ?
2. Whether there is any service deficiency on the part of the opposite party ?
3. If what is the relief ?
For convenience, all these issues are considered together. The specific case of the complainant is that the refrigerator sold by the opposite party burst during the warranty period, and caused damages to the house and several house hold articles. Even though the incident was informed to the opposite party, they did not come forward to compensate for the loss of the complainant. The opposite party admits the purchase of refrigerator by the complainant on 01.08.2015. But they deny the contention that the refrigerator has a complete warranty of 5 years. The incident alleged as on 17.09.2019 is emphatically denied. The refrigerator or compressor would not burst as alleged. If any such incident happened, the same is not on account of any manufacturing defect of the product.
The Ext.A1 the purchase bill would show that the refrigerator was purchased on 01.08.2015. The incident was on 17.09.2019, which was after 4 years of purchase. The complainant would argue that the refrigerator was burst due to some defects.
Admittedly, the incident was occurred during night and such a happening was come to the knowledge of the complainant on next day morning. Nobody seen the incident. The inmates of the house could notice only the scenery of articles in destroyed state. According to the complainant, walls, doors, windows and tiles sustained crack. Mixi, induction cooker, T.V, kitchen furniture etc. are destroyed. Electrification equipment such as switch board, motor connection board, wires are also spoiled. Walls and ceilings and floorings became blackened due to smoke and burning.
So the refrigerator was not burst or destroyed alone but along with some other electronic and electrical instrument. No evidence to know as to which one is burst or destroyed firstly. Also there is no expert report to show that the refrigerator was burst due to its own defect.
The house belongs to Mrs.Lissy Chakko, who filed claim for compensation for the damage caused to the house. Ext.X1 is the entire file of Fire Claim submitted by Lissy Chakko before Dist. Insurance Officer. Ext.X1(A) is the Survey Report prepared by the Insurance surveyor. Ext.X1(A) would show a different view. In the page No.2 of the Report, it can be read as follows:
“16. Occurrence:-The loss/damage to the residential buildings has reportedly been occurred on 16th September 2019 at about 3.00am.According to the statement of the insured, the people from the area of its vicinity, during the enquiry made by the undersigned, the wall plastering of the kitchen room, floor tiles, electrical wirings, fridge, television, furniture, stabiliser etc. of the residential building were fount burnt and damaged badly due to electrical short circuit.”
So, as per the observation of the insurance surveyor the accident is due to electrical short circuit. The insurance surveyor prepared the report on the basis of the statements of the people from the area of its vicinity, including the insured, namely, Mrs.Lissy Chakko during the enquiry. The house hold article damaged includes Fridge (refrigerator)also. Admittedly an amount of Rs.31,077/- has been obtained by Mrs.Lissy Chakko, towards insurance benefit. The amount is sanctioned towards the compensation for damage caused to the house alone.
The complainant is Mr.Sajeesh Philip, who claims to be the son in law of Mrs.Lissy Chakko argue that due to the bursting of refrigerator, Mixi, induction cooker, T.V, kitchen furniture, Electrification equipment such as switch board, motor connection board, wires etc. Are spoiled and the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-and costs.
Basis of argument of Sajeesh Philip is that the incident occurred within 5 years of purchase of Refrigerator. Here there is no reliable evidence to hold that the refrigerator is burst or destroyed due to any manufacturing defect or any other defect of its own. Mrs.Lissy Chakko did not come forward to file complaintnor to give evidence regarding the incident before this commission. No statement by Mrs.LissyChakko regarding bursting of refrigerator. And also the observation of the insurance surveyor is that the accident is due to electrical short circuit.
Considering the facts and circumstance of the case this commission is of the view that the complainant failed to prove any service deficiency or negligence or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. It appears that this complaint is filed by Mr. Sajeesh Philip only on experimental basis. Therefore the complainant is not entitled to any amount towards compensation.
In the result the complaint is dismissed without cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibit
A1: Copy of Purchase bill, dated 01/08/2015
A2:Warranty card
A3: Copy of News report
A4: Copy of Photographs
A5: Certificate issued by Rajapuram Police
A6: Certificate issued by Village Officer
A7: Bank Pass Book
X1: Fire Claim
X1 A- Survey Report
X1(B1) – Claim form
X1(B2)- Estimate
X1(B3) – List prepared by greenwood furniture Malakallu
Witness Cross examined
PW1: Sajeesh Philip
PW2: Vidya Surendran
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/