IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Thursday the 28th day of October, 2021
Filed on 19.08.2019
Present
1. Sri.S.Santhosh kumar.Bsc.LLB(President)
2. Smt. Sholly.P.R ,LLB (Member)
In
CC/No.212/2019
Between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Sri.S.Ajithkumar, The Regional Manager
Kuzhuppeth Veedu Represented by Havells Co.
Pattoli Market.P.O Regional Office, National Highway
Kandalloor Village Junction, Palarivattom, Kochi
Karthikappally Taluk (Adv. Sri. K.Rasheed)
(Party in person)
O R D E R
SMT. SHOLLY.P.R (MEMBER)
Complaint filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Material averments briefly stated are as follows:-
About 5 years ago the complainant had purchased an electrical circuit breaker panel board from authorized dealer of opposite party for an approximate amount of Rs.20,000/-.
2. It was entrusted that the said product will be in action arranging the electricity while there was load shed or lightening or any other unexpected circuits by off condition of its switches one by one.
3. But as shown in the picture filed along with the complaint the said product was completely and consequently the electric system of the complainant’s house was completely ruined and caused a total loss of Rs. 75,000/-. It may cause lose in the life of the complainant also. It happened due to the manufacturing defect of the said product which causes irreparable loss to the complainant. A total loss sustained for Rs. 1,00,000/-. Hence this complaint. In response to the complainant.
4.. Opposite party filed version as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts.
The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party. The complainant had purchased the product about 5 years back as mentioned in the complaint and the first complaint was made on 08/08/2019 which proves that the product was working OK all this while. Further the complainant has not attached any expert opinion report to prove any manufacturing defect in the product hence it cannot be said that the product was having any manufacturing defect. The complainant has also failed to produce the purchase invoice at the time of visit of the technician nor he has attached the invoice copy with the complaint. The date of purchase of the product is not mentioned in the complaint. However it is mentioned that 5 years back he purchased the product. In this connection it is hereby submitted that as per company policy, there is only one year warranty on the product. Since the defect is caused after 5 years of the purchase, the product does not come in warranty. Hence the opposite party is ready to willing to repair/replace the product on chargeable basis.
5. There are two kinds of devices ie, Overload/ Current Protection Devices and SPD (Surge Protection Deivces). The alleged product which was purchased and installed by the complainant ie, MCB (Miniature Circuit Breaker) is an overload current protection device providing protection in power systems against faults like shot circuit and overload. The IS/IEC 60947-2 which is the International Standard of Circuit Breakers defines a Circuit Breaker as “a mechanical switching device, capable of making, carrying and breaking currents under normal circuit conditions and also making, carrying for a specified time and breaking currents under specified abnormal circuit conditions such as those of short circuits”. The devices/products falling under the category of Overload/Current Protection Devices are not meant for protection against High Voltage which was/ is the reason in the case of the Complainant. In fact due to non-installation of the SPD, the Overload/Current Protection Device id, MCB which was installed at the premises of the complainant got damaged. Similarly the function of RCCB is to protect against leakage of current/earthing. Therefore the allegation of the complainant that the damage was due to manufacturing defect is not tenable.
6. Opposite party is always ready and willing to provide service to the complainant subject to the warranty conditions. Since the product was purchased 5 years back the opposite party company can replace the product on chargeable basis. The complainant is not entitled for any relief as sought in the complaint. The complaint may be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.
7. On the above pleadings following points were raised for consideration:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as sought for?
- Reliefs and costs?
-
-
Complainant’s case is that he had purchased an electrical circuit breaker panel board from opposite party’sauthorized dealer at Kayamkulam.The said product was completely ruined infire and due to the incident all the electric system of his house were distructed thereby caused a total loss ofRs.1,00,000/- to the complainant.The complainant mainly alleged manufacturing defect of the product.Moreover the Pw1 stated that he had purchased the said product about 5 years back.There was no evidence to prove the date of purchase also.Hence the period of purchase and its usage are uncertain. PW1 also alleged manufacturing defect of the product in dispute.In the above circumstance eventhough the opposite party hadnot turned up for cross examining PW1 when he mounted in box and he himself did not enter in box to prove his case in oath, as per the provisions ofSec. 13(2)(b) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
“It is only to be decided on the basis ofevidence brought to our noticeby the complainantwhen the opposite party omits or fails to take any action to represent his case within the time given by the Forum.”
-
11. Regarding the contention of manufacturing defect the Hon’ble National Commission in Classic Automobiles Vs. LilaNand Mishra and Another (2010 CPJ 235) (NCJ). It was held that
“the onus to prove the manufacturing defect is on the complainant and further it was necessary to obtain expert opinion before saying that there was manufacturing defect.”
-
-
In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 28th day of October, 2021.
Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)
Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Ajithkumar( complainant)
Ext.A1 - Photograph
Ext.A2 - Photo graph
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Senior Superintendent
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
