Haryana

StateCommission

A/514/2019

GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ROMESH BOMAL - Opp.Party(s)

J.P.S. AHLUWALIA

08 Dec 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.514 of 2019

                                                 Date of Institution: 27.05.2019

                                                          Date of final hearing: 08.12.2022

Date of pronouncement: 23.01.2023

 

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Limited, Appliances Division, SCF 123-124, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager Commercial Sh. Majaz Khan.

…..Appellant

Versus

1. Romesh Bomel son of Sh. Ghasi Ram, aged 60 years, resident of House No. 547, Sector-14, Rohtak.
2. M/s Sham Lal & Co. 206/25, Sadar Bazar, Delhi Cantt, Delhi through its Properietor.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. J.P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Gagandeep Rana, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

                   Mr. Abhey, Advocate for the respondent No.2.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.514 of 2019 has been filed against the order dated 16.04.2019 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rohtak (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.55 of 2017, which was allowed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that on 09.04.2016 complainant purchased Godrej Split AC 1.5 ton 18 FGS (5 star) along with Godrej MWO GMX 30 CA stabilizer and starter kit from opposite party (OP) No.2 for Rs.48,641/-. On 20.09.2016, brother-in-law of the complainant switched on the air conditioner but to his utter shock after sometime there was short circuit in the AC due to a manufacturing defect resultantly, the AC was brunt completely and even house of the complainant also caught fire. Brother-in-law of the complainant informed the fire brigade but several valuable articles lying in the house i.e. AC, costly furniture, clothes, marriage album, personal documents, ex-serviceman card and other items got burnt. He requested the OPs to compensate for his loss. Faced with this situation he got even issued a legal notice dated 29.11.2016 to OPs but all in vain. Thus, there being deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, hence the complaint.

3.      OP No.1  was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 08.03.2019.

4.      In its written version, OP No.2 raised preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction, cause of action, complaint being false and concocted grounds and complaint being bad for mis joinder of parties. On merit, OP No. 2 submitted that there was no short circuit from AC due to any manufacturing defect, rather fire can occur due to defective or low quality wiring/ switches/MCB’s or defective connection of electric supply or due to over load or due to excessive voltage supply. Thus, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 2 and requested to dismiss the complaint.

5.      In its written version, OP No.3 raised preliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction, for want of cause of action and concealment of material facts. On merit, OP No. 3 submitted that though complainant had purchased good quality of AC but he did not purchase compatible stabilizer of Godrej brand. Complainant installed V-Guard stabilizer with Godrej AC but the same was not as per specification.  OP No. 3 further submitted that there was no short circuit in AC due to any manufacturing defect rather fire can occur due to defective/lower quality of wiring/ switches/MCb’s or defective connection of electricity wiring or due to over load or due to excessive heavy voltage supply by the electricity department. Thus, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 3 and requested to dismiss the complaint

6.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Rohtak has allowed the complaint vide order dated 16.04.2019, which is as under:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.3 to pay a lump-sum compensation of Rs.200000/- (Rupees two lacs only) on account of loss of valuable articles of the complainant including the cost of A.C. as well as cost of litigation and the compensation for the harassment caused by the opposite parties to the complainant within one month from the date of decision failing which opposite party No. 3 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order.”

7.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P No.3-appellant has preferred this appeal.

8.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh. J.P.S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. Gagandeep Rana, learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as Sh. Abhey, learned counsel for respondent No.2. With their kind assistance entire record of appeal as well as original record of District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

9.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that at the time of incident of fire complainant was not in India and had no knowledge of said incident. On 22.12.2016 complainant filed complaint to the police of alleged fire dated 20.09.2016 i.e. after three months of the incident on his return from abroad. Further, in support of the cause of incident of fire, no affidavit of Vijender Singh brother-in-law of the complainant has been placed on record and therefore, complainant failed to prove the incident of fire. The complainant was not entitled for the claim amount as prayed for and learned District Commission fell in error while allowing the same and deserves to be set aside.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 argued that due to short circuit in the AC, fire broke out in the house of complainant and he suffered huge loss. Learned District Commission has rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.  

10.    Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 argued that AC purchased by the complainant was of good quality and there was no manufacturing defect in the said AC. The fire broke out in the premises of complainant due to some other reasons and thus complainant was not entitled for the claim amount as prayed for.      

11.    It is admitted that complainant purchased AC of Godrej company. As per Ex.C-1 inspection report of complainant’s house revealed that  “Air con indoor unit inspected and found the Fan coil windings shorting and showing Zero insulation which has become the root cause of fire in house and a thorough troubleshooting carried on rest all the electrical and electronic equipments and found no signs of shorting in their circuits.” As per Ex.C-3, the complainant informed the opposite party to replace the burnt AC unit. In the said email, the complainant mentioned that at around 20:30 hrs on 20^th September 2016 smoke started coming out from AC unit (Inside Fan Unit) and suddenly broke into major fire. The mail also mentioned that there was no other electrical equipment in room which could possibly has caused shorting in the electrical circuit. Perusal of Ex.C-8 newspaper cutting shows that there was fire broke out in the house
Ex.C-10 to 21 reveals that the fire broke out from the AC. Ex.C-22 Fire Brigade report shows that upon intimation at 21.55 on 20.09.2016, the official of fire brigade extinguished the fire within 30 minutes. All the documents produced by the counsel for the complainant are relevant. Since the inspection report  Ex.C-1 shows that there was fan coil windings shorting and  showing Zero insulation which has become the root cause of fire in house. In view of the above, the fire had taken place in the house of the complainant due to manufacturing defect in the air conditioner.The learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant. The learned District Commission had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 16.04.2019.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

12.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent No.1 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

13.              Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Order.

14.              A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

15.              File be consigned to record room.                  

 

23^rd January, 2023              Suresh Chander Kaushik            S. P. Sood                                                                Member                                             Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)