State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Anil Kumar vs Modern Electronics on 15 December, 2025
1
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
[ADDITIONAL BENCH]
Appeal No. : 226 of 2025
Date of Institution : 15.07.2025
Date of Decision : 15.12.2025
Anil Kumar S/o Puran Chand (Proprietor of Sai Enterprises), House No
1600, Sector 52, U.T. Chandigarh.
Appellant/Complainant
VERSUS
1] Modern Electronics SCO 321, Near J.W Marriott Hotel Sector 35-B,
Chandigarh through its proprietor
2] Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Head Office: 20th to 24th Floor,
Two Horizon Centre, Golf Course Rd, DLF Phase 5, Sector 43,
Gurugram, Haryana 122202 through its Director
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
BEFORE: MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-
Sh. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant None for respondent No.1 (exparte vide order dated 16.10.2025) Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.2 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER The instant appeal has been filed by the complainant - Sh. Anil Kumar (appellant herein) seeking setting aside of order dated 01.05.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (referred to as the 'District Commission') vide which consumer complaint No.387 of 2024 filed by him has been dismissed by the District Commission.
2] The case of the appellant before the District Commission was that on 24.5.2022, he purchased a Samsung refrigerator from respondent 2 No.1, manufactured by respondent No.2, for ₹29,400/- vide invoice Annexure C-2. On the morning of 31.5.2024, around 9:00 a.m., the subject refrigerator caught fire due to an internal defect causing a blast that engulfed the bedroom and kitchen. The complainant's son, who was sleeping in the room, miraculously escaped. The fire damaged the entire room and kitchen including Godrej Almirah, Wood Almirah, Wood-Bed Norma (Sofa cum Bed), Sewing Machine, Ceiling Fan, Water Purifier, Utensils, Gas Stove, 11 gifts, clothes, cash worth ₹33,000/-, 3 blankets and bed mattresses. The matter was immediately reported to the Station Fire Office, Sector 32, Chandigarh and the fire was extinguished due to their timely efforts. Despite reporting the incident, the respondents have not redressed his grievance and he suffered a loss of ₹16,00,000/- due to the fire caused by the refrigerator defect, which as per the appellant, constituted deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the respondents.
3] Despite due service, when opposite party No.1 did not turn up before this Commission, it was proceeded against ex-parte by the District Commission vide order dated 30.10.2024.
4] However, respondent No.2/opposite party No.2 contested the complaint before the District Commission by filing its reply, wherein, it was admitted that the complainant purchased the subject refrigerator from respondent No.1/opposite party No.1. However, it was denied that the refrigerator caught fire due to a defect. It was pleaded that the complainant purchased the refrigerator on 24.5.2022, which was successfully installed and the alleged incident occurred on 30.5.2024, more than two years after purchase, during which no complaint was raised. It was further pleaded that the complainant reported the incident to the service centre on 31.5.2024 and as per standard procedure, a thorough investigation was conducted by the expert team, who submitted a detailed analysis report (Annexure R-2). The report concluded that the fire did not occur due to a defect or blast in the refrigerator; the compressor was intact; no internal short circuit or spark was found on high-voltage parts and the refrigerator was burnt due to an external fire heat source. Rest of the averments and allegations were denied being wrong.
35] Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents in support of their respective cases.
6] After hearing the parties and going through the record, the District Commission dismissed the consumer complaint as stated above. 7] Order dated 01.05.2025 passed by the District Commission has been assailed by the appellant/complainant on the ground that the District Commission relied solely on the report of the Deputy General Manager (DGM) of respondent no.2 - Samsung India Electronic Limited and failed to note that the incident occurred on 31.05.2024 whereas the DGM's report is dated 08.10.2024 prepared only to defeat the appellant's lawful claim. It has been stated that the complaint was instituted on 12.08.2024 prior to the report. It has further been stated that during the pendency of the complaint, the appellant requested that the matter be referred to a Government- accredited agency/laboratory under Section 38 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 but the District Commission dismissed the complaint without doing so. It has further been stated that the DGM's affidavit reflects a verdict rather than an expert opinion. It has further been stated that the District Commission also ignored evidence placed by the complainant, including photographs (Annexure C-4 colly) showing that the fridge was damaged due to an internal short circuit/impact with the compressor also damaged, corroborated by respondent no.2's own photographs. It has further been stated that District Commission's finding that the complainant failed to prove the defect is unsustainable and its reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case titled Dr. Gurdeep Singh Gandhok Vs. M/s Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd. & anr., First Appeal No.1172 of 2024 is misplaced. In support of contentions, raised, the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled 'New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s Mudit Roadways', 2024 (3) SCC 193 wherein it has been held in Para 5, interalia, that "Therefore, it was unequivocally declared that the precise cause of fire, whether attributed to a short-circuit or any alternative factor, remains immaterial, provided the claimant is not the instigator of the fire..."
48] On behalf of the respondents/opposite parties, it has been stated that the appellant/complainant has shown no evidence of any manufacturing defect or deficiency in service and the refrigerator, purchased on 24.05.2022, operated without issue for over two years, making it implausible to link the incident of 30.05.2024 to any latent defect. It was further argued that an expert inspection was promptly conducted and a detailed report (Annexure R-2) found the compressor intact, no signs of internal short-circuiting or sparking and burn damage consistent with an external heat source, not any internal fault. Accordingly, respondent No. 2 maintains that the allegations are unsupported, speculative and directly contradicted by the expert analysis. It has further been contended that the District Commission has dismissed the consumer complaint of the appellant/complainant, which is a well reasoned order and as such, the appeal be dismissed.
9] After considering the rival contentions of the parties and upon going through the impugned order, the record and the written arguments filed by the appellant/complainant, this Commission finds that none of the contentions advanced by the appellant/complainant merit interference with the well-reasoned order of the District Commission, as the entire appeal rests on conjectures, selective interpretation of facts and an attempt to shift the burden of proof without substantiating the core allegation of a manufacturing defect. The appellant predicates his challenge on the assertion that the District Commission erred in relying on the expert report submitted by the Deputy General Manager of respondent No.2; however, this argument is untenable for the simple reason that the complainant, who bears the primary onus under Sections 2(10), 2(42) and 38(2)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to establish defect and deficiency, produced no technical evidence whatsoever to prove that the refrigerator suffered from any internal short circuit, design flaw or manufacturing defect. Mere photographs of a burnt appliance, without any scientific analysis, do not constitute proof of defect in a complex electrical product and the burden cannot be discharged by assertions or inferences drawn from external damage. The appellant argues that the incident occurred on 31.05.2024 5 whereas the DGM's report was dated 08.10.2024 but the date of the expert inspection or the timing of generation of the report has no bearing on its evidentiary value unless mala fides, bias, fabrication or factual inconsistencies are demonstrated, none of which have been established. The record reflects that the complaint was lodged with the service centre on 31.05.2024, following which respondent No.2 conducted the investigation as per standard procedure and the expert team's findings were consistent, detailed, technical in nature and based on physical examination of the unit. The appellant's allegation that the report was "prepared only to defeat his claim" is speculative and unsupported by any credible material. Moreover, Section 38 empowers, but does not mandate, the District Commission to refer goods for expert testing; such reference is necessary only where "the defect cannot be determined without proper analysis or test." Here, respondent No.2 had already produced a technical analysis report, Annexued R-2 colly, by qualified experts i.e. Mr. Rajat Sharma, certified and explosive investigator from National Association of Fire Investigator, International (NAFI) who visited the spot and clicked photographs which were also annexed with the analysis report. The appellant/complainant neither filed any contrary expert report nor demonstrated insufficiency or unreliability in the existing report to necessitate a referral. A Commission is not required to mechanically send goods for laboratory testing merely because a party demands it; judicial discretion must be exercised based on relevance, necessity and the availability of credible evidence, all of which the District Commission duly considered. The appellant's criticism that the DGM's affidavit "reflects a verdict rather than an expert opinion" is also misconceived; expert testimony necessarily contains findings and conclusions based on scientific examination and a reasoned technical conclusion cannot be discarded merely because it does not support the complainant's case.
10] On the contrary, the expert report clearly records that the compressor was intact, no high-voltage components showed signs of sparking or short-circuiting, there was no internal explosion and the pattern of burn damage indicated exposure to an external heat source findings that 6 directly negate the appellant's foundational allegation of an internal defect. Further, the photographs on record, along with the detailed analysis report Annexure R-2, conclusively falsified the appellant's allegation of an internal blast or defect, as they clearly show that the compressor remained intact, with no signs of explosion, internal short-circuiting or sparking. The expert report, authored by a certified fire and explosive investigator, unequivocally concludes that the refrigerator was burnt due to an external fire or heat source, as reflected in the burn pattern and the untouched condition of the high-voltage components in the compressor room findings wholly inconsistent with any internal defect.
11] Thus, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the appellant/complainant and in view of the cogent expert evidence produced by respondent No.2, it stood proved before the District Commission that the incident was not caused by any defect in the refrigerator and the appellant/complainant has failed to discharge the onus placed upon him. Thus, the appellant's reliance on photographs (Annexure C-4) is misplaced, as burnt condition of a product post-incident could not itself reveal the cause of fire without specialized examination; the outward appearance of damage could not be equated with evidence of internal malfunction. As such, no benefit can be devied by the appellant from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mudit Roadways (supra). The principle that "precise cause of fire is immaterial if the claimant is not the instigator" pertains exclusively to insurance indemnification where coverage is based on occurrence of fire, not on proof of manufacturing defect. In consumer disputes alleging defect, the cause is not only material but central to the adjudication and liability cannot be imposed upon a manufacturer without clear proof of defect as defined under Section 2(10) of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the appellant's reliance on this judgment is wholly misplaced, irrelevant and legally unsustainable. Likewise, his grievance that the District Commission ignored evidence is incorrect; the District Commission duly considered the pleadings, photographs, expert report and circumstances and reached a reasoned conclusion that no defect was proven. The District Commission was also justified in relying on the Dr. 7 Gurdeep Singh Gandhok v. Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., as that judgment correctly reiterates the principle that the complainant must prove defect through reliable evidence, especially when, expert analysis is available. The appellant's attempt to challenge this reliance is unpersuasive because he has not demonstrated how the precedent is inapplicable or incorrectly applied.
12] Further, the long period of more than two years of flawless usage of the refrigerator, without any complaint or service issue, strongly militates against the theory of an inherent manufacturing defect. Consumer law does not envisage imposition of strict liability on manufacturers for every fire incident unless a defect is affirmatively proven through credible evidence, which the appellant has failed to produce. The respondent's expert report stood unrebutted, unchallenged by any contrary technical opinion, and is consistent with the physical condition of the appliance. In these circumstances, the District Commission rightly concluded that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof and there is no perversity, illegality or material irregularity in its findings warranting appellate interference.
13] For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.
14] Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, in this appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
15] Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge forthwith.
16] File be consigned to the record room after completion. Pronounced.
15.12.2025 (PADMA PANDEY) PRESIDING MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER *Ad* 8