View 16844 Cases Against Reliance
Grigin Mouldings Pvt Ltd filed a consumer case on 01 Feb 2018 against Reliance Fire Protection Engineers in the Bangalore 4th Additional Consumer Court. The case no is CC/15/832 and the judgment uploaded on 06 Feb 2018.
Complaint filed on: 27.04.2015
Disposed on: 01.02.2018
BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BENGALURU
1ST FLOOR, BMTC, B-BLOCK, TTMC BUILDING, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 027
CC.No.832/2015
DATED THIS THE 1ST FEBRUARY OF 2018
SRI.S.L.PATIL, PRESIDENT
SRI.D.SURESH, MEMBER
SMT.N.R.ROOPA, MEMBER
Complainant/s: -
Origin Mouldings (P) ltd.,
no.36-B, Sarvabhouma
Nagar, Bilekahalli,
Bannerghatta road,
Bengaluru-76.
Rep. by its Director Mr.Mallikarjun
Inperson
V/s
Opposite party/s
Respondent/s:-
Reliance Fire Protection Engineers, No.16,
60 feet road, Subbanapalya Extn., M.S.Nagar Post, Bengaluru-33.
By Proprietor Sri.D.Parthiban
PRESIDENT: SRI.S.L.PATIL
This complaint is filed by the Complainant against the Opposite party (herein after referred as Op) seeking issuance of direction to discharge all the fire extinguishers at their premises and handover empty cylinders along with refund of Rs.9,060/-. Further direct to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the inconvenience and mental torture.
2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that they have received quotation for refilling of fire extinguishers with ref no.KAR:P:550:2014:2015 dtd.15.09.14. After discussion and finalization they have released purchase order for refilling of fire extinguishers with ref.no.PO/88/2014-15 dtd.27.09.14. On 31.12.2014 vide invoice no.1378 & 1379 (Bilekahali Unit) & Invoice no.941 dtd.07.10.14 (Jigani Unit) all the fire extinguishers has been refilled & installed. It is also the case of the Complainant that on 19.01.15, one fire extinguisher (0.5kg) failed terribly during its usage in controlling a small fire resulted by short circuit in the electric panel at M.D’s residence. The gas cartridge exhausted before it could dispense the powder fully from the cylinder. Ultimately, with presence of mind, the fire was brought under control by throwing a bucket full of sand which was fortunately lying nearby. With this incident, they are shocked and doubtful of the performance of nearly 25+ products installed at various points at their manufacturing industry. In case of a fire hazard, they cannot put lives & our property under risk due to hapless quality of this life saving devises. In this context, several correspondences were made with the Op, but no proper response from them. Hence, Complainant filed this complaint for seeking relief as stated above.
3. On receipt of the notice, Op did appear in-person and filed objections, denying the contents of the complaint filed by the Complainant, stating that no better particulars are furnished by the Complainant with regard to any damage to their property. Further Op stated that on receipt of complaint by the Complainant, Op very immediately attended his complaint, but it is the Complainant who has not responded to the technician deputed to his office. In view of the non-cooperation of the Complainant, the said technician came back. Hence submits that there is no deficiency of service on the part of it. Hence on these grounds and other grounds prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The Complainant to substantiate his case filed affidavit evidence and produced 5 documents. The Proprietor of Op filed affidavit evidence and none of the documents produced. Op filed written arguments. We have gone through the available materials on record.
5. The points that arise for our consideration are:
6. Our answers to the above points are as under:
Point no.1: In the Negative.
Point no.2: As per the final order for the following
REASONS
7. Point no.1: It is not in dispute that the Complainant has placed an order for refilling of fire extinguishers with ref no.KAR:P:550:2014:2015 dtd.15.09.14. It is also not in dispute that as per the quotation, Op has installed the said fire extinguishers. According to the case of the Complainant, on 19.01.15, one fire extinguisher (0.5kg) failed terribly during its usage in controlling a small fire resulted by short circuit in the electric panel at M.D’s residence. In this context, expert report was not obtained by the Complainant to come to the conclusion that, one fire extinguisher (0.5kg) failed terribly during its usage in controlling the said fire. On receipt of the request of the Complainant, Op has deputed its Assistant Sales Manager/Service Sales Manager to attend the said problem, but it is the Complainant who did not respond. Hence there is no any deficiency of service on its part. This contention is not specifically denied by the Complainant. Moreover, fire extinguishers were not installed in the M.D’s residence but they were taken to the M.D’s house in the M.D’s car for the purpose of extinguish or control of the fire, as a small fire resulted by short circuit in the electric panel at M.D’s residence. Further we noticed that the Op by its letter dtd.24.01.15 to the Complainant stated that ABC 500gms is the smallest Fire Extinguisher available in the Fire Extinguisher capacity. ABC 500gms is filled with 500gms powder and it is pressurized by nitrogen. This Fire Extinguisher’s is needed for very small fine like fire in car, kitchen etc., Since, the Fire Extinguishers were used in the fire on panel board, only 90% of the powder will come out, during the usage. Further stated in the said letter that, Op has used the Fire Extinguishers on a live demonstration, before filling the Fire Extinguishers. In this context, Op requested the Complainant to kindly enquire the performance of the Fire Extinguishers, during the demonstration of the Fire Extinguishers. As per the advice, Op will be deputing their Marketing executive for checking the Fire Extinguisher and submit the inspection report. To this letter also, Complainant did not respond. The said Fire Extinguishers is meant for only to extinguish of fire from limited extent. There is no materials on record to show that, to what extent the fire has been captured for the residential house of M.D. When such being the fact, we do not find any laxity on the part of Op, in responding to the request of the Complainant. Hence we answered point no.1 in the negative, holding that there is no any deficiency of service on the part of Op.
8. Point no.2: In the result, we passed the following:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the Complainant is hereby dismissed devoid of any merits.
2. Looking to the circumstances of the case, we directed both the parties to bear their own cost.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and pronounced in the Open Forum on 01st February of 2018).
(SURESH.D)MEMBER | (ROOPA.N.R)MEMBER | (S.L.PATIL) PRESIDENT |
1. Witness examined on behalf of the complainant/s by way of affidavit:
Sri.S.Mallikarjuna, who being the Director of the Complainant was examined.
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Doc.no.1 | Email dtd.20.01.15 |
Doc.no.2 | Letter dtd.24.01.15 |
Doc.no.3 | Email dtd.07.02.15 |
Doc.no.4 | Letter dtd.06.02.15 |
Doc.no.5 | Letter dtd.09.02.14 |
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s Respondent/s by way of affidavit:
Sri.D.Parthiban, who being the Proprietor of Op was examined.
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite party/s
-NIL- |
(SURESH.D)MEMBER | (ROOPA.N.R)MEMBER | (S.L.PATIL) PRESIDENT |
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.