DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 05th day of August, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K.,Member Date of filing: 21/06/2019
CC/186/2019
1. Ramachandran C,
S/o.Narayanan Nair
K. P.I.P.Quarters 2/7
Kanniampuram, Ottapalam,
Palakkad 679 104.
(Present Address. Plassery House, Koonathara,
Kavalappara-679 523)
2. Sathi Devi P - Complainants
W/o.Ramachandran C.
(Address is same as above)
(Parties in person)
Vs
1.The Proprietor
Melco Electrical and Home World,
Door No. 4/269-22-26
Near Valluvanad Hospital,
Kanniyampuram, Ottapalam-679 104.
2. The Authorised Signatory - Opposite Parties
Godrej & Boyce, Manufacturing Co.Ltd.,
Appliance Division, Plant II, Pirojsha Nagar,
Vikholi (WW), Mumbai- 400 070.
(OP1 Ex parte
OP2 by Adv.N.V. Peethambaran)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant purchased a Godrej Refrigerator model 185 CHWINE manufactured by the 2nd opposite party from the 1st opposite party’s shop on 14.10.2016 on payment of Rs.14,800/-. The refrigerator was installed by 1st opposite party’s technician. It had a warranty of 10 years, but within few months of its purchase, its started showing problems. A technician from the Palakkad branch visited his house and after inspection informed the defect in the washer of the door.
On 13.03.2019, the fridge blasted with loud noise and dark fumes surrounded the house. The complainant was not present there at that time and the neighbors informed about this incident to Fire Force and KSEB. Officials of KSEB disconnected the electricity and with the help of Fire force somehow they managed to control the fire. But by that time, all his household items including, grinder, sofa, dining table and vessels in the kitchen were completely damaged and because of the dark fumes, clothes and some important documents got partially damaged. Their computer, TV and almost all the items in the house became useless because of this. The complainant along with his family was staying in the KPIP Quarters in the name of his wife. The walls of the Quarters also got damaged because of this incident.
At first they were under the impression that short circuit was the cause of the accident, but the KSEB officials after inspection told it was not because of short circuit but because of the defect in the fridge. The complainant at once informed the 1st opposite party about the accident and their staff visited, took photographs and video and communicated about this incident to the 2nd opposite party.
On 14.03.2019, a staff from their Palakkad office visited the spot and took photographs and informed about this matter to their Ernakulam office. Later the complainant communicated the 2nd opposite party company directly stating the details of the accident and the loss suffered by them, but there was no response from their part.
The complainant and his family suffered a lot because of the conduct of the opposite parties. This happened because of the manufacturing defect of the fridge. Since the fridge was completely burnt, it was not possible to identify the exact defective part. All these happened because of the low quality materials used in manufacturing the product and absence of proper service by the opposite parties. The complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss because of the Deficiency in Service and Unfair Trade Practice on the part of opposite parties.
The complainant filed this complaint for getting a total compensation of Rs.4,99,970/- under various heads such as damage to his household items, cost for the repair of the quarters, mental agony and cost of the litigation.
2. Complaint was admitted and registered notices were issued to the opposite parties. Even after the receipt of notice, 1st opposite party did not appear before the Forum and so they were set ex-parte. 2nd Opposite party entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The 2nd opposite party raised the following contentions in their version.
The 2nd opposite party is the manufacturer of household appliances and all products manufactured and marketed by them are subjected to strict quality check. This opposite party did not do servicing directly and it is done by their authorized service centers. The service centre in the complainant’s area is A1-Trade Links and they are not arrayed as party in this case.
They denied that the alleged burnt Refrigerator was manufactured by them. They give only one year warranty for whole refrigerator and 10 years for its compressor and the alleged incident occurred after the warranty period.
The opposite party and its dealers always insist for installing voltage stabilizer to maintain constant voltage level and in this case there was no stabilizer. The wiring, plug points, meter etc. of the Quarters is very old and it was not properly maintained.
The alleged incident occurred only due to short circuit and there is no chance for a refrigerator having a door complaint being burnt. The liability is only on the KSEB and KPIP and they are not made parties and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The complainant did not make any complaints about the technical fault in the fridge as alleged by him. The opposite party denied the contention of the complainants that the burst refrigerator was manufactured by 2nd opposite party and purchased from the 1st opposite party.
The complainants are not entitled to any reliefs claimed and the complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. From the pleadings, the following points arise for consideration?
1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
2. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that the accident
was the result of defect in the refrigerator?
3. Whether there is any Deficiency in service /Unfair Trade Practice on
the part of Opposite parties?
4. Whether the complaint is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
5. Reliefs, if any.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence and Exts A1 to A8 marked. Ext A1 in series of (a) & (b) and A8 is a set of photographs and one CD. 2nd opposite party also filed proof affidavit and no documents were marked from their side and evidence closed. As the opposite parties were continuously absent, the complainant was heard and taken for orders.
Point No.1
6. The 2nd opposite party in their version contends that the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. They claim that KSEB and KPIP are only liable if any damage is caused to the complainant and they are not made parties. Further 2nd opposite party’s service centre at Palakkad, A1 Trade Link also was not arrayed in the party array.
As per the complainant, the cause of the accident was the manufacturing defect of the refrigerator. The low quality materials used in manufacturing the fridge resulted in the blasting of the Fridge.
So his grievance is against the manufacturer and the dealer of the product. There is no need to implead the other parties as alleged in the opposite party’s version. Further it is for the complainant to decide as to whom are to be made parties. Point no.1 is decided accordingly.
Point no.2
7. As per the complainant’s contention, on 13.03.2019, the refrigerator in his house blasted and caused damage to the entire house hold items and other electrical gadgets like T.V, grinder, computer etc. In order to substantiate his contentions, he produced the report from Kerala State Electrical Inspectorate Office, Palakkad which is marked as Ext A5 and photographs showing damages caused to the Fridge and other electrical gadgets, household items, walls of the building which is marked as Ext A8.
8. Ext A5 report states that ASp¯ apdnbn Hcp sd{^nPntdäÀ ]qÀ®ambpw I¯n¡cnªv Xdbn hoWp InS¡p¶ \nebn ImWp¶p. CXn\v kao]w Hcp ac¯nsâ tai `mKnIambn I¯nb \nebn ImWp¶p. Cu apdnbn aäv sshZyqX D]IcW§sfm¶pw ImWs¸«nÃ. aäv apdnIfntes¡m¶pw Aán _m[n¨n«nÃ. {]Xy£¯n sd{^nPtdädnsâ kmt¦XnI XIcmÀ \nan¯w Sn D]IcW¯n\v Xo ]nSn¡pIbmWpmbsX¶v a\Ênem¡p¶p. F¶mÂ, sd{^nPntdäÀ ]qÀ®ambpw I¯n t]mbXn\m Sn D]IcW¯nse GXv `mK¯nsâ XIcmÀ \nan¯amWv Aán_m[bpmbsX¶v Is¯m\mbn«nÃ.
It is evident from Ext. A8 (series) and Ext. A5 report that the fridge is completely destroyed and no other electrical equipment is damaged completely. Ext. A5 report was marked without any objection from the 2nd opposite party. Further, there was no attempt on the part of the 2nd opposite party company to examine the officials who prepared the report or the complainant or other witnesses to substantiate their contention that the accident was due to short circuit and the poor wiring and maintenance in the quarters. In the absence of any other cogent evidence to show that the fire was due to the short circuit or the poor wiring and maintenance in the quarters, we are inclined to accept the report of Kerala State Electrical Inspectorate office that the accident was caused due to the default in the refrigerator. Further no other electrical equipment got damaged and no other apartments in the Quarters is affected due to by the short-circuit.
Point no.3
9. The opposite parties in their version states that the fridge which caught fire is not manufactured by them. The complainant has produced the Tax invoice which is marked as Ext A1 which shows the purchase of Godrej refrigerator on 14.10.2016 for an amount of Rs.14800/-. This clearly shows that the refrigerator is manufactured by the 2nd opposite party company and it is sold by the 1st opposite party. Further the exhibits were marked without any objection.
10. The complainant stated that the staff from the 1st opposite party visited his house and took photo graphs and video of the accident and sent it to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant also sent mail stating the damages caused to him on account of the defective refrigerator. But there was no response from the company. He further contends that he was offered an old fridge as replacement for the damaged one from the Ernakulum office which he refused. From all these averments, we came to a conclusion that there is Deficiency in Service on the part of the opposite parties in not compensating the complainant for the damages caused to him due to the defective fridge.
11. The blasting of the equipment resulted in damaging the house hold items, other electrical equipments, walls of the building etc. as seen from the photo graphs, which caused financial loss and mental agony to the complainant. The complainant has produced the bills showing the purchase of materials and paint for repairing the Quarters and Labour charges. This shows that he incurred additional financial liability in repairing and painting the Quarters where they stayed. All these happened because of the defect in the refrigerator manufactured by the 2nd opposite party and sold by the 1st opposite party. Further the contention of the opposite party that in order to accommodate the voltage fluctuation, stabilizer has to be installed and in this case no such voltage stabilizer was installed itself shows that refrigerator is not capable of withholding the variations in the electricity. Manufacturing & selling of product without necessary protective features itself is an Unfair Trade Practice.
Point Nos. 4 & 5
12. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate the complainant for that Unfair Trade Practice.
In the result, the complaint is allowed in the following terms.
1. Cost of the fridge - Rs 14,800/-
(Rupees Fourteen thousand eight hundred only)
2. Cost of repair of the quarters, painting
including the labour charges - Rs. 12,470/-
(Rupees Twelve thousand four hundred and seventy only)
3. Damages to the household items - Rs. 50,000/-
(Rupees Fifty thousand only)
4. Compensation for Deficiency in service and
unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite parties - Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty five thousand only)
5. Mental agony and other inconveniences
suffered by the complainant - Rs. 25,000/-
(Rupees Twenty five thousand only)
6. Cost of litigation - Rs.10,000/-
(Rupees Ten Thousand only)
The above amounts are be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite party is liable to give Rs.250/- as solatium per month or part thereof till the date of payment.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 5th day of August, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty N.K
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of Complainant
Ext. A1– Tax invoice bearing no.13032 dated 14.10.2016 (Original) .
Ext. A2– User Guide.
Ext. A3– Print out of E mail communication dated 19.03.2019.
Ext. A4– Report bearing no. FC 121/19 dated 13.03.2019 issued by Kerala Fire Force(Original).
Ext. A5– Investigation report bearing no.B2-3833/19/EIP dated 15.05.2019 of Deputy Electrical
Inspector, Palakkad(Original).
Ext. A6– Invoice bearing no.B1978 dated 22.05.2019 (Original).
Ext. A7 (a)– Bill pertaining to invoice bearing no.565 dated 22.05.2019 (Original).
Ext. A7 (b)– invoice dated 24.05.2019(Original) .
Ext. A8 (series) – 13 photographs and a CD.
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties : Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side : Nil
Witness examined from opposite party’s side : Nil
Cost : 10,000/
(Rupees Ten Thousand only)
