Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The   complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that on 09.11.2020 the complainant had purchased one Refrigerator Model RT28T3722DX/NL Sr.No.0AFV4ZAN800369V of Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 from Opposite Party No.1 for Rs.24,000/- vide Invoice No.2232 dated 09.11.2020, whereas Opposite Party No.2 is the authorised service provider of Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 to install the said refrigerator. Further alleges that on 08.01.2021 when the complainant and his wife were on their work and their house was locked, then neighbour of complainant made a telephonic call to the complainant and informed him that smog is coming out from their house due to which the complainant rushed towards his house and found that flames were coming from the back lower side of the fridge  which damaged the other articles  worth Rs.60,000/- lying in the room. The complainant immediately contacted Opposite Party No.1 who sent namely Jaswinder Singh of Opposite Party No.2 to the premises of the complainant and he clicked the snaps who also narrated the said facts to the company. After that it is surprised of the complainant when on 15.2.2021 contacted with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  had informed him that his claim has been rejected by the company alleging that Refrigerator cannot be repaired under warranty as the same got burnt due to the external sources. Photographs taken by the Opposite Party No.1 clearly shows that fridge was burnt from the back lower part where the motor and other electronic parts and fitting is there which proves that the fridge as well as other articles of the complainant were damaged  due to the technical/ manufacturing defect in the fridge. Till today, the fridge of the complainant has not been examined in any laboratory and the same is lying in the house of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant made so many requests to admit the rightful claim of the complainant, but the Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.   In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Parties clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainant left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to replace the refrigerator in question and also to pay Rs.60,000/- on account of damages due to burning of domestic articles and Rs.10,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, humiliation and Rs.6000/- on account of litigation expenses.

Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant  for the redressal of  their grievances.

2.       Opposite Party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. No deficiency in service has been attributed to the Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 is only the dealer of the product in question and hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1.  

3.       None has come present on behalf of Opposite Party No.2 despite service, and hence, Opposite Party No.2 is proceeded  against exparte.

4.       Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. Brief facts are that the complainant lodged the complaint regarding burning of refrigerator on 09.01.2021. The service engineer and experts technicians of answering respondent visited the house of complainant and checked the refrigerator thoroughly and they found that there was no fault in the quality of the product ad the unit got burnt due to external source. The burning of the product due to external source does not come under the product liability and is not covered under warranty. Due to burning the product in question has been badly damaged and is not repairable. The refrigerator in question has caught fire from some external source as per the opinion of the technical engineer who checked the refrigerator. The fire in the house of complainant has arisen for some other reason and it reached the refrigerator and resulting in damage. The technical report of the engineer is Ex.R1 and thus authorised service centre apprised the complainant that as per the product in question has been burnt from external source and there was no fault in the refrigerator, hence, it was not covered under warranty and Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 are not liable to replace the product in question.  The complainant should get the fridge examined from duly authorised forensic lab to ascertain the reason for burning of the fridge and hence, the complaint against Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 may please be dismissed.   

5.       In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence  affidavit  of complainant Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C23 and closed the evidence.

6.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party No.1 tendered into evidence  the affidavit Ex.OP1/1 and similarly,  Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Sahijwni Ex.Ops 3 &4/1, affidavit of Sh.Ranjit Sharma Ex.Ops3 & 4/2 and copies of documents Ex.Ops3 & 4/3 to Ex.Ops3 & 4/7 and thereafter, the Opposite Parties closed their respective evidence.  

7.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the complainant as well as ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties and also gone through the documents placed on record.

8.       During the course of arguments, ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as ld.counsel for Opposite Parties   have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written statement respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the complainant is that 08.01.2021 when the complainant and his wife were on their work and their house was locked, then neighbour of complainant made a telephonic call to the complainant and informed him that smog is coming out from their house due to which the complainant rushed towards his house and found that flames were coming from the back lower side of the fridge  which damaged the other articles  worth Rs.60,000/- lying in the room. The complainant immediately contacted Opposite Party No.1 who sent namely Jaswinder Singh of Opposite Party No.2 to the premises of the complainant and he clicked the snaps who also narrated the said facts to the company. After that it is surprised of the complainant when on 15.2.2021 contacted with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2  had informed him that his claim has been rejected by the company alleging that Refrigerator cannot be repaired under warranty as the same got burnt due to the external sources. Photographs taken by the Opposite Party No.1 clearly shows that fridge was burnt from the back lower part where the motor and other electronic parts and fitting is there which proves that the fridge as well as other articles of the complainant were damaged  due to the technical/ manufacturing defect in the fridge. Till today, the fridge of the complainant has not been examined in any laboratory and the same is lying in the house of the complainant. On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Parties repelled the aforesaid contention of the  ld.counsel for the complainant and contended that  the complainant lodged the complaint regarding burning of refrigerator on 09.01.2021. The service engineer and experts technicians of answering respondent visited the house of complainant and checked the refrigerator thoroughly and they found that there was no fault in the quality of the product ad the unit got burnt due to external source. The burning of the product due to external source does not come under the product liability and is not covered under warranty. Due to burning the product in question has been badly damaged and is not repairable. The refrigerator in question has caught fire from some external source as per the opinion of the technical engineer who checked the refrigerator. The fire in the house of complainant has arisen for some other reason and it reached the refrigerator and resulting in damage. The technical report of the engineer is Ex.R1 and thus authorised service centre apprised the complainant that as per the product in question has been burnt from external source and there was no fault in the refrigerator, hence, it was not covered under warranty and Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 are not liable to replace the product in question. The main question for determination as to whether the product in question was burnt. The plea of the Opposite Parties is that  refrigerator in question has caught fire from some external source as per the opinion of the technical engineer who checked the refrigerator. The fire in the house of complainant has arisen for some other reason and it reached the refrigerator and resulting in damage. Perusal of the photographs produced on record shows that the product in question burnt from back portion of the product.  It is settled that power supply runs towards its source of supply and it does not run towards the product to which power is supplied. In the present case that power supply did not run towards its source of supply i.e. shoe as it is evident from the photographs Ex.C2 to Ex.C20 that same was not burnt, but the product itself was burnt. Troubleshooting the power supply basically means isolating the supply as the cause of problems within a system and, if necessary, replacing it. It is rarely recommended that an inexperienced user open a power supply to make repairs because of the dangerous high voltages present. Even when unplugged, power supplies can retain dangerous voltage and must be discharged (like a monitor) before service. Such internal repairs are beyond the scope of this book and are specifically not recommended unless the technician knows what he is doing. Many symptoms lead to suspect that the power supply in a system is failing. This can sometimes be difficult for an inexperienced technician to see because, at times little connection seems to exist between the symptom and the cause—the power supply. But in the present case, the shoe of plug is not burnt which proves that due to some fault in the product in question, the  product in question has been burnt from internal source. So, there is some  technical fault in the refrigerator due to which, the refrigerator caught fire thereby causing a huge loss to the complainant. So, in our view, the complainant is entitled to get the relief against the Opposite Parties No.3 and 4.  But on the other hand, the Opposite Party has failed to redress the grievance of the complainant and also failed to prove its defence by producing any cogent and convincing evidence on record. Not only this, the Opposite Parties also did not give satisfactory reply to the complaints of the complainant with regard to defect in the product in question and it seems that there is some  defect in the product in question as alleged by the complainant and to strengthen his version, the complainant has tendered his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1. In this regard, Hon’ble Delhi State Commission, New Delhi in case titled as Jugnu Dhillon Vs. Reliance Digital Retail Limited 11(2014) CPJ page 17 has held that

“failure of compressor within 2-3 months of its purchase itself amounts to manufacturing defects- when any company stopped manufacturing particular model under these circumstances only way left is to refund of money alongwith interest- Product found to be defective at the very outset- It is always better to order for refund of amount.”

Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Hindustan Motors Limited and Anr. Vs. N.Shiva Kumar and Anr. (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases, 654 also held so.  In the instant case, the colour of the fridge in question became defective within 2 months from the date of its purchase. In this regard, Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in  case Shirish Vs. C.S.Rahalkar (Dr) in 2010(3) CLT page 209 has held that 

“the respondent had paid Rs.32,500/- for an original Amtrex air –conditioner and not an assembled air-conditioner. The State Commission has rightly held the petitioner guilty of Unfair Trade Practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and consequently, directed the petitioner to compensate the respondent for the same.”

As stated above, the complainant proved all these averments through his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C1 and also proved on record the copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C23.  The evidence produced on record  by the complainant remained unrebutted and unchallenged through any cogent and convincing evidence.  

9.       Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant and direct Opposite Parties No.3 and 4 to refund the price of the Refrigerator amounting to Rs.24,000/- (Rupees twenty four thousands only) to the complainant (against the return of the Refrigerator  in question by the complainant) within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:12.07.2022.