Case No.CC/484/2015

Date of Institution: - 16.10.2015

Order Reserved on: - 02.08.2024

      Date of Order: -23.08.2024

IN THE MATTER OF:

Ritu Tech

Through its partner, Sh. RavindraYadav,

S/o Late Sh. Narayan Singh Yadav,

R/o H-4, Shivlok Colony, Phase-I,

Near TibriBhel Road,

Haridwar.

          …..Complainant

VERSUS

1. The Oyster Bath Concepts Pvt. Ltd.

Through its Managing Director/Director,

D-73, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-I,

New Delhi.

2. M/s. Maheshwari& Co.

Through its Prop. Sh. SubhashPeriwal

Bhupatwala, Haridwar,

Uttrakhand.

… Opposite Parties

O R D E R

Dr. HarshaliKaur, Member

1. The Complainant company has filed the case through Sh. RavindraYadav, a partner in the complainant company in whose premises the cause of action occurred. The complainant approached OP-2, the authorized dealer of OP-1, to purchase a readymade bathroom/steam chamber. He was assured of the quality and a guarantee of two years for any manufacturing defects on all the products manufactured by OP-1. Satisfied with the assurances of OP-2, the complainant purchased one bath chamber manufactured by OP-1 from the OP-2 shop.
2. The complainant paid Rs.90,500/- for the product and was issued invoice number 03 dated 01.05.2015(Annexure-B) for the consideration amount paid by him. The bath chamber was to be installed in the complainant's newly constructed house. 
3. The complainant states that the technicians of OP-1 installed the product in his newly constructed premises in Haridwar, UP. However, on 11.05.2015, the bath chamber caught fire allegedly due to the manufacturing defect of the product,which caused the bath chamber and other fittings and wirings to melt. 
4. The complainant alleges he suffered a loss of Rs.5 lakh apart from the bath chamber's cost. He, therefore, immediately informed the OPs. The complainant has annexed the photographs of the burnt bath chamber as Annexure-C with this complaint.
5. Thereafter, on 12.05.2015, the executive of OP-1 visited the complainant's premises to verify the complainant's claim of their bath chamber catching fire. The executives of OP-1 assured the complainant that they would install a new bath chamber within a week and reimburse the loss suffered by the complainant due to the fire incident, which would be calculated by the team of surveyors of OP-1.
6. The complainant repeatedly contacted OP-1 and OP-2, requesting them to install a new bath chamber and refund him the loss suffered due to the fire caused by their product. However, the OP lingered on and gave one excuse or other, and neither surveyed the complainant's premises to calculate the loss he suffered nor did they install the new bath chamber to date. 
7. He, therefore, issued a legal notice to the OPs dated 01.06.2015, to which OP-1 replied on 22.06.2015 (Annexure-D & F respectively). Despite receipt of the legal notice when the OPs did not take any steps to resolve the complainant's grievance, the complainant filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs,  the complainant prays for directions to the OPs to install a new bath chamber or refund Rs.90,500/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from date of purchase till realization, Rs.5 lakh for damages caused to the complainant, Rs.5 lakh towards compensation for the mental pain, agony and harassment suffered by him and Rs.33,000/- towards cost of litigation.
9. Notice was issued to the OPs to file their reply. OP-1, in their reply, stated that, admittedly, the bath chamber was purchased by the complainant company and installed in the premises of Sh. RavindraYadav at Haridwar. The premises of Sh. Ravindra was under construction and uninhabited, and there was no proper electricity and water supply when the steam bath chamber was installed. However, on the date of installation, i.e. 07.05.2015, the construction supervisor of the complainant provided temporary electricity and water supply from the main board for the purpose of demonstration and installation only.
10. The technical staff of OP-2 clearly instructed the complainant's construction supervisor that the system should not be plugged in until thewater supply and electricity fittings were adequately completed. The complainant was further urged to call the technician for a demonstration after completingall the electricity and water supply fittings. However, the complainant chose not to do what was needed, and hence, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.
11. Further, the complainant has filed photographs of the fire incident.These photographs make it amply clear that the premises did not haveproper electricity connection at the time of the fire incident.
12. So far as the complainant's claim of a manufacturing defect,he has neither placed any evidence on record to show that the product had a manufacturing defect nor has sought the leave of this forum to get an independent expert opinion to ascertain the same. Hence, in the absence of any evidence to show that the fire incident was due to the steam bath chamber on the night of 11.05.2015, which could have occurred due to a short circuit,as is a common phenomenon in construction sites.
13. OP-2 did not file a reply despite several opportunities, and hence, the defence of OP-2 was struck off vide order dated 22.12.2016.
14. The complainant filed rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 wherein he clarified that the OP's product was installed after the construction of his house was complete and the house was fully equipped with all fittings and fixtures, including electricity and water supply. The photographs filed by the complainant were only of the area which suffered massive damage due to the fire caused by the manufacturing defect of the bath chamber. The complainant also filed his affidavit in evidence, reiterating the averments made in his complaint.
15. OP-1, after filing the reply did not file their affidavit in evidence and hence was proceeded Ex-parte vide order dated 15.12.2017.The complainant filed written arguments, and we have heard the complainant on the date fixed for final arguments. We have carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the present complaint and have perused the documents proved on record by the contesting parties.
16. Admitted facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a steam bath chamber from OP-2 manufactured by OP-1 on 01.05.2015. He paid the consideration amount of Rs.90,500/- for the product. The technical team of OP-2 installed the bath chamber at the complainant's premises on 07.05.2015.On the night of 11.05.2015, the complainant'sbathroom was ruined due to a fire incident.
17. The complainant alleges that the fire was caused by the manufacturing defect of OP-1's bath chamber,which caught fire,melting all other fittings and wires.The complainant claims to have suffered a substantial loss that he has calculated to the tune of Rs.5 lakh.
18. The complainant informed OPs of the incident immediately, and the technician of OP-2 visited the complainant's premises on  12.05.2015and assured the complainant that his bath chamber would be replaced and damages paid after their surveyor team assessed the damage incurred by him.
19. When the OPs did not heed the complainant's request, he issued a legal notice to the OPs dated 01.06.2015. Only OP-1 replied to the legal notice. The complainant has annexed a copy of the reply as Annexure-D with the complaint. Aggrieved by the OPs casual approach and dissatisfied with the reply to his Legal Notice, the complainant filed the instant complaint.
20. OP-1 denied deficient service to the complainant, stating instead that the complainant's home was under construction, as evident from the pictures filed by him (Exb. CW-1/3 to CW-1/9). Even at the time of installation,the complainant's construction supervisor gave the OP technicians a temporary connection to demonstrate the working of the steam bath chamber after installation on 07.05.2015. Thereafter, the technicians explicitly informed the construction supervisor to unplug the product and only use the product once the electrical fitting and water supply were available.
21. In such circumstances, when the premises are under construction, a fire incident could have been caused by a short circuit, which is quite common. Further, though the complainant has alleged a manufacturing defect with the bath chamber, he has not filed any evidence or appropriate application to seek expert opinion. Withoutany such evidence, the OP product cannot be found defective.
22. In our view, a bare perusal of the coloured photographs, which the complainant filed on record, clarifies that the complainant was undoubtedly getting some construction/renovation work done in his house, which had not been completed at the time of the fire incident. Though the complainant denies that the construction work was ongoing, he chose, for reasons best known to him, not to file pictures of the complete house to show that the electricity and water supply meter was installed and working.
23. The OPs are ex parte, but the burden of proving the present claim lies with the complainant, which the complainant has failed to do. He could have filed the completion certificate or documents to show that the work was complete at his home, a copy of the meter bill and water bill or any other document to prove that the fire incident on 11.05.2015 was only due to the steam bath chamber installed by the OPs.
24. The complainant has also not placed any documents or an independent report on record to substantiate his claim that the product had a manufacturing defect and thus caused the fire incident. Without any cogent documentary evidence to substantiate the complainant's case, we feel constrained to dismiss the same without cost.
25. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

• Copy of the order be given/sent to the parties as per rule.
• The file be consigned to the Record Room.
• Announce in the open Court on 23.08.2024.