State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dr.Gurdip Singh Gandhok vs Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) ... on 12 September, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH Consumer Complaint No. 42/2014 Date of Institution 22.04.2014 Date of Decision 12/09/2014 Dr.Gurdip Singh Gandhok S/o Late Sh.Aya Singh Gandhok, r/o House No.3020, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh. .Complainant V E R S U S 1. M/s Hitachi Home & Life Solutions (India) Ltd., A-15, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate, Mathura Road, New Delhi. 2. Utility Trading Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd., SCO No.309, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh. ... Opposite Parties BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT SH.DEV RAJ, MEMBER
SMT.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:
Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainants.
Er.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.
PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER In brief, the facts of the case are that the complainant purchased a refrigerator make Hitachi, manufactured by Opposite Party No.1, from Opposite Party No.2 for a sum of Rs.48,300/- vide invoice dated 27.02.2010. It was stated that on 20.05.2013 at about 3.45 pm., he heard a loud noise of explosion, from his house and found that smoke was emitting from the doors and windows. Upon entering the house, the complainant found a foul smell and the rooms filled with smoke and heat. He saw the refrigerator lying in pieces due to explosion. It was further stated that the neighbour pulled the complainant out of the house as there was a high risk for major bodily harm and sustaining burn injuries from the heat as well as significant lung damage from noxious smoke inhalation.
2. It was further stated that the fire brigade and the police were informed. The firemen broke the back door and entered the house and found that there was blast in the refrigerator and the same was subsequently blown up into pieces. It was further stated that all the household articles i.e. furniture, electronics, fans, curtains, bed sheets, dining table, bed mattresses and doors got damaged.
Several cracks developed on the walls, roof and floor of the house. The window panes also broke down as well as several furniture articles burnt/melted due to heat. There was a very thick layer of carbon over every nook and corner of the house.
3. It was further stated that the fact regarding the loss was brought to the notice of the Opposite Parties, vide e-mail dated 20.05.2013, Annexure C-3. DDR, Annexure C-4, was also lodged by the complainant.
It was further stated that the officials of the Opposite Parties visited the house but gave no response. It was further stated that the complainant requested the Electricity Department to supply the report regarding visit and inspection of the house, which vide reply dated 25.06.2013, Annexure C-5, informed that there was a fire inside the House and they immediately disconnected the three phase power supply from the electricity meter by removing the electricity wires. The complainant was further intimated that the electricity meter and the supply wires upto meter were safe and in order. It was further stated that the officials of the Opposite Parties, insisted that there was defect in the electricity supply, and started mentioning the cause of fire and blast due to defect in electricity supply.
4. Consequently, the complainant sought information under the Right to Information Act, from the Electricity Department, as to whether, there was any fluctuation or power cut in the electric supply on the specific day. The complainant was informed vide letter dated 19.07.2013, Annexure C-6, by the Electricity Department that no complaint of any fluctuation of electricity supply was received on 20.05.2013, in that area and there was no electricity cut on that day. It was further stated that the Fire Department in its report dated 26.06.2013, Annexure C-7 mentioned that the probable cause of fire was blast in compressor of the refrigerator. The complainant served the Opposite Parties with legal notice dated 10.08.2013, Annexure C-8, It was further stated that the Opposite Parties desired some documents which were also submitted. It was further stated that the Opposite Parties sent reply Annexure-10 to the legal notice. It was further stated that no one from the manufacturer ever visited the complainant prior to 27.08.2013. In reply, the Opposite Parties alleged about the visit of an Engineer, from Thailand, but they never disclosed the identity of any Engineer from Thailand. The Engineer from Thailand who alleged to have visited the premises of the complainant gave his observations as mentioned in para 10 of the complaint.
5. It was further stated that, according to the Opposite Parties, the reason for the fire was due to external factor and they offered to give a new refrigerator in place of the burnt one, which the complainant refused. It was further stated that the reasoning given by the Opposite Parties was totally vague. According to the complainant, the report of the Electricity Department was very clear and if the defect was there in the power/plug cord of the refrigerator, as alleged, then the meter would have been dripped and the electric supply to whole of the house would have been disconnected. It was further stated that the observation was based on the presumption, that the cloth cover placed on the top of the refrigerator could have dropped on the power supply plug (starting point of the fire) which could be one of the reasons, for aggravation of fire. It was further stated that the finding could be of a road side mechanic and not of an Engineer from Thailand.
6. It was further stated that on receipt of reply, the complainant requested the Engineers namely Sh.R.R.Garg and Sh.Rajan Mittal to give their expert opinion regarding the loss, who submitted their reports alongwith affidavits, which are annexed as Annexures C-11 to C-14. It was further stated that the Engineer Sh.R.R.Garg in his report stated that the fire started from the lower back side of the fridge due to manufacturing defect, in the compressor. He further mentioned, in his report, that the fire did not start from any external source. Whereas the Engineer Sh.Rajan Mittal in his report observed that the fire/blast was caused due to the faulty compressor fitted in the refrigerator.
He mentioned in his report that due to leakage and discharge of gas/oil from the compressor, the fire was caused and resulted into huge blast inside the refrigerator as a result of which the whole refrigerator got burnt and caused huge damage and destroyed household articles etc.
7. The bills showing the cost of value of the articles damaged is Annexure C-15 (colly). It was further stated that Sh.R.D.Sharma, Chartered Engineer, worked out the estimated cost of damage to the house to the tune of Rs.70,67,000/- on the basis of rates given in the Delhi schedule of rates 2012 (the rates published by Govt. of India CPWD/rates as prevailing in the market). Copy of the report and the affidavit of Sh.R.D.Sharma are Annexures C-16 and C-17. Photographs showing the loss to the house and the status of the electricity meter are Annexure C-18 (colly). It was further stated that there was manufacturing defect, in the compressor, as a result of which, the blast took place, in the refrigerator, which caused damage to the household articles and the house, resulting into huge financial loss, to the complainant. It was further stated that the house is not worth living as it was dangerous for health, as it needed major repairs in order to make it worth living. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts, on the part of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed directing the Opposite Parties as under:-
I. To pay an amount of Rs.70,67,000/- required for reconstruction of the house.
II.
To pay an amount of Rs. 9,46,875/- towards the damaged furniture such as dining table, sofa, beds, dining chairs, side tables, center table, mattresses.
III.
To pay an amount of Rs. 2,37,000/- towards the CCTV Cameras and controls, theft alarm and control damaged due to incident.
IV.
To refund an amount of Rs.48,300/- towards the cost of refrigerator.
V. To pay an amount of Rs. 75,600/- towards the cost of LCD Sony damaged in the incident.
VI.
To pay an amount of Rs. 5,350/- towards the printer mode HP CNC JC07329 damaged in the incident.
VII.
To pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,500/- for the cost of curtains destroyed due to incident.
VIII.
To pay an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the clothes damaged in the incident.
IX.
To pay an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards fans, carpet, music system, VCR, DVD, Microwave, AC, Heating Blowers, Computer Tables, Chairs, Towels, bed sheets, Comforters, Cushions, Blankets, Kitchen Gadgets, Antique items and other household items.
X. To pay an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment.
XI.
To pay an amount of Rs. 1, 00, 000/- towards the litigation cost.
XII.
To pay the amount under clause (i) to (x) along with 18% interest from the date of loss till realization.
XIII.
Any other relief as this Hon'ble Commission deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
8. In its written statement, Opposite Party No.1 stated that as per the terms and conditions of the purchase of the refrigerator, which were duly mentioned on the warranty card, only Courts at Ahmedabad shall have the exclusive jurisdiction, for settling any claims and disputes, arising under the warranty. It was further stated that the fire incident that took place was not due to blast in the compressor of the refrigerator, as alleged by the complainant, but was due to external factors which were completely beyond the control of the answering Opposite Party. It was further stated that the complainant informed about the alleged incident of 20.05.2013 on 21.05.2013 and the same was attended to by the Executives/Engineers of the answering Opposite Party. On an inspection conducted by the service Engineers of the answering Opposite Party, it was found that the compressor and the gas pipes were intact, even after the alleged explosion and were not even damaged and, as such, no liability could be fastened upon it (Opposite Party). It was further stated that the expert Engineers of the Company from Thailand were sent to the premises of the complainant alongwith an Engineer from Ahmedabad on 12.09.2013, to know the cause of fire in the refrigerator and their observations were as follows:
(i) It is observed that the start position of ignition was lower part of the back/rear side of the refrigerator near the plug socket at the wall.
ii) That the fire started from the drain pan placed above the compressor near the plug socket and then spreading fire to the body of the refrigerator.
iii) Electrical component such as compressor, capacitor, OLP (over load protector) and starter was in OK condition. No ignition from these components have been observed for the reasons:
a) The compressor is made of steel.
b) Capacitor is covered by G.I. sheet cover.
c) OLP and starter are covered by flame retardant material.
iv) The cloth cover placed on the top of the refrigerator could have dropped on the power supply plug (starting point of fire) which could be one of the reasons for aggravation of the fire.
9. It was further stated that from the observations aforesaid, it was clear that the fire was not due to blast in the compressor but due to external factors. It was further stated that no damage was caused to the compressor and the gas pipes. The reason for the fire was probably due to short circuit in the plug/due to voltage fluctuation/due to cloth kept on the top of refrigerator falling on the socket and catching fire/due to wear and tear of wire by rats/cockroaches etc., but was in no manner due to any defect/problem in the compressor of the refrigerator as alleged. It was further stated that photos taken by the service Engineers of the answering Opposite Party, while inspecting the premises clearly show that the power socket was burnt and there were traces of flames going in upward direction which indicate the starting point of ignition of the fire was probably, the plug socket. It was further stated that no stabilizer was installed by the complainant for the refrigerator and there were high chances of alleged fire taking place due to voltage fluctuations. It was further stated that the compressor was covered with iron and it could be clearly seen that it was not burnt and, as such, the fire was not caused in the compressor. It was further stated that on visual inspection, it was found that only a part of the refrigerator, which was connected to power cord should have been burnt. However in the present case, the part attached to the power cord had not burnt meaning thereby that the fire was caused on account of external means and not on account of any alleged defect in the compressor. It was further stated that the power plug was found to be totally burnt. It was further stated that the very genesis of fire needed to be ascertained which required detailed investigation. It was further stated that the refrigerator was purchased way back on 27.02.2010 and the same had been working absolutely fine for more than 3 years, and during this period, no complaint was ever lodged by the complainant regarding any defect in the product. It was further stated that the refrigerator was working absolutely fine and did not suffer any manufacturing defects. It was further stated that the complainant was trying to put the loss due to fire by external factors on the shoulders of the answering Opposite Party. It was further stated that the alleged fire incident took place in the living hall and all the rooms and all moveable goods were not damaged. However, the complainant sought refund of money of all household items that too at highly inflated and exorbitant rates, which itself demonstrated the fact that the complaint was merely a tool to extract a hefty money from the answering Opposite Party. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party offered one year warranty on the unit, as mentioned in the warranty card i.e. excluding light bulb, glass -ware and plastic parts and additionally five year warranty only on the compressor. It was denied that the entire product was still under warranty on the date of loss. It was further stated that the alleged loss suffered by the complainant was not covered under the warranty. It was further stated that the sooty dust in the house was only due to the fact that the refrigerator alongwith some of the household articles were engulfed in flames due to some external factors. In the refrigerator, the insulation was made of polyurethane foam which when burn creates sooty dust as duly mentioned in the observations of the service Engineers. It was denied that the window-panes also broke down. It was denied that the fire did not take place due to electricity default, as alleged by the Electricity Department. It was further stated that the report of the Electricity Department did not prove that the internal wiring and power points were functioning properly. It was further stated that as per the report of the Fire Department, there was problem in the refrigerator due to short circuit which was purely external factor. It was further stated that the mere fact that no fluctuation report was received by the Electricity Department did not mean that no fluctuation took place. It was further stated that no documents were supplied by the Fire Department to substantiate its claim. It was further stated that after many requests, the complainant provided the documents on 27.08.2013. It was denied that the entire supply to the house was in order and there was no burning of wires or plug. The reports of Sh.R.R Garg and Sh.Rajan Mital were specifically denied. It was further stated that there was no manufacturing defect, in the refrigerator. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party was neither deficient in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trace practice. The remaining averments, made in the complaint, were denied, being false and baseless.
10. In its written reply, Opposite Party No.2 stated that this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. It was further stated that the complainant did not approach this Commission with clean hands. The factum of purchase of refrigerator was admitted. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2 was the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.1, and was not liable for any manufacturing defect, for the said product. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party, has been selling the refrigerators for many years and no such problem was ever reported by any customer. It was further stated that on receipt of the information regarding the incident, the answering Opposite Party promptly acted and sent its service Engineers to look into the matter. After detailed analysis of the alleged incident, the answering Opposite Party, informed the complainant that the alleged fire incident was not due to the blast in the compressor as alleged but due to external factors. It was further stated that the answering Opposite Party was neither deficient, in rendering service nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments were denied, being false.
11. The complainant, filed replications to the written statements filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein he reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and refuted those, contained in the written versions of Opposite Parties.
12. The complainant, in support of his case submitted his affidavit alongwith a number of documents. Besides this, the affidavits of Sh.R.R.Garg, Sh.Rajan Mittal and Sh.R.D.Sharma, Approved Chartered Engineer have been submitted by the complainant. In rebuttal to the affidavits of Sh.T.Mohan Krishanan and Takashi Shigetomi, the complainant also submitted the affidavit of Sh.Rajan Mittal.
13. Opposite Party No.1, in support of its case submitted the affidavit of Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Branch Service Incharge, by way of evidence alongwith a number of documents. Besides this, the affidavits of the Engineers namely Sh.T.Mohan Krishanan and Takashi Shigetomi have also been submitted.
14. Opposite Party No.2, in support of its case submitted the affidavit of Sh.Manohar Singh, Authorized Representative by way of evidence.
15. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully.
16. The Counsel for the complainant submitted that there was manufacturing defect, in the compressor of the refrigerator. He further submitted that due to leakage and discharge of gas/oil from the compressor, the fire was caused which resulted into huge blast inside the refrigerator due to which all the household articles i.e. furniture, electrical items, fans, curtains, bed sheets, dining table, bed mattresses and doors got damaged. He further submitted that the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the complaint.
17. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, submitted that there was no manufacturing defect, in the compressor of the refrigerator. He further submitted that the fire incident that took place was not due to blast, in the compressor of the refrigerator, as alleged by the complainant, but was due to external factors as observed by the expert Engineers. He further submitted that no damage was caused to the compressor and the gas pipes and the reason for the fire was probably due to short circuit in the plug as a result of voltage fluctuation and due to cloth kept on the top of refrigerator failing on the socket and catching fire on account of wear and tear of the wire by rats/cockroaches etc but was in no manner due to any defect/problem in the compressor of the refrigerator as alleged. He further submitted that the very genesis of fire needed to be ascertained, which required detailed investigation. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties offered one year warranty on the unit as mentioned in the warranty card i.e. excluding light bulb, glass- ware and plastic parts and additionally five year warranty, only on the compressor. He further submitted that the entire product was not still under warranty on the date of loss. He further submitted that the complaint filed by the complainant, was liable to be dismissed.
18. The first and foremost question, to be determined. in this case, is, as to whether, the compressor of the refrigerator, in question, was suffering from manufacturing defect, due to which the alleged incident of fire took place in the house of the complainant or not. The only stand of the complainant is that the fire took place due to the defective compressor as a result of whereof he suffered huge financial loss on account of the damage to the building, household articles etc. To prove this fact he placed reliance upon the reports and affidavits of Sh.R.R.Garg and Sh.Rajan Mittal aforesaid. Sh. R.R.Garg submitted, in his affidavit, that in his opinion, the fire started from the back side and lower part of the fridge where most of the parts i.e. compressor, capacitor, OLP (Over Load Protector), relay and timer were located whereas Mr.Rajan Mittal submitted, in his affidavit, that in his opinion, the fire/blast was caused due to faulty compressor, fitted in the refrigerator by the manufacturer.
19. The allegations, made in the complaint, and the averments contained in the affidavits, aforesaid, produced by the complainant were specifically controverted and rebutted by the Opposite Parties. Sh.Sanjeev Kumar, Branch Service Incharge and the qualified Engineer (BE) specifically deposed in his affidavit that the compressor and the gas pipes were intact even after the alleged explosion and were not even damaged. The photographs clicked by the Engineers of Opposite Party No.1 while inspecting the premises clearly show that the power socket was burnt and there were traces of flames going in upward direction which indicated the starting point of the ignition of fire was probably the plug socket. He further deposed that only part of the refrigerator which was connected to power cord, should have been burnt, however in the present case, the part attached to the power cord had not been burnt meaning thereby the fire was caused on account of external means and the refrigerator was not the cause of the fire. Further to prove that there was no manufacturing defect in the compressor or that the fire did not take place due to the alleged defective compressor, the Opposite Parties placed reliance upon the affidavits of the Technical Expert/Engineers namely Sh.T.Mohan Krishanan and Takashi Shigetomi, who observed therein as under:
(i) It is observed that the start position of ignition was lower part of the back/rear side of the refrigerator near the plug socket at the wall.
ii) That the fire started from the drain pan placed above the compressor near the plug socket and then spreading fire to the body of the refrigerator.
iii) Electrical component such as compressor, capacitor, OLP (over load protector) and starter was in OK condition. No ignition from these components have been observed for the reasons:
a) The compressor is made of steel.
b) Capacitor is covered by G.I. sheet cover.
c) OLP and starter are covered by flame retardant material.
iv) The cloth cover placed on the top of the refrigerator could have dropped on the power supply plug (starting point of fire) which could be one of the reasons for aggravation of the fire.
20. Once the Opposite Parties specifically denied that there was no manufacturing defect in the compressor or that the fire did not take place due to the manufacturing defect in the compressor then the burden to prove the same lay on the complainant, which he miserably failed to prove by leading any cogent and conclusive evidence in this regard. The opinion given by the experts produced by the complainant in their affidavits is based on mere presumptions and conjectures and therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the same.
21. The perusal of the report dated 19.07.2013 of the Electricity Department, placed, on record, by the complainant merely shows that no complaint of fluctuations in the electricity supply was received on 20.05.2013 from the area. In the said report, no exact cause of fire in the house of the complainant was mentioned and, as such, no reliance can be placed upon the same. Similarly, in the report dated 26.06.2013 of the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh produced by the complainant, it was merely mentioned that the probable cause of fire was blast in the compressor of the fridge but it was not mentioned in the said report as to how it came to this conclusion that the probable cause of fire was blast in the compressor and, as such, the aforesaid report without any conclusive and authentic proof regarding the exact cause of fire in the house of the complainant cannot be relied upon or given credence.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that, in case, the fire had broken due to blast in the compressor of the refrigerator, then the same would have suffered some damage, but as observed by the Engineers of Opposite Party No.1, the compressor and the gas pipes were intact after the alleged explosion. In view of the above sequence of events, we are of the considered view that the complainant failed to prove, on record, that the fire broke out due to the alleged defective compressor of the refrigerator. There is no authentic and corroborative evidence on record to conclude that the compressor of the refrigerator, in question, suffered from manufacturing defect and the same was the cause of the alleged incident of fire in the house of the complainant. As per the document i.e. Material Safety Data Sheet of International Institute of Refrigeration, marked as Annexure X, the auto-ignition temperature in relation to the product, in question, is more than 750C. This data is globally recognized. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, the higher temperature as mentioned above, which is the requirement of blast/burning of the compressor, could be prevalent at the site of the incident i.e. premises of the complainant. This fact is further fortified from the affidavits of the experts of Opposite Party No.1 who specifically stated that when they examined the refrigerator, in question, it was found that the compressor and the capacitor of the same (refrigerator), were intact. Otherwise also, had there been any manufacturing defect in the compressor of the refrigerator, a prudent man like the complainant must have made a complaint to the Opposite Parties, in this regard, prior to the incident.
Surprisingly, there is no document in the shape of the complaint or e-mail, on the part of the complainant, to prove that the compressor of the refrigerator was allegedly defective prior to the incident or that the refrigerator was not functioning properly.
It is not the case of the complainant that the refrigerator, in question, was giving any problem prior to the alleged incident. Thus, it is held that there was no manufacturing defect, in the compressor and, as such, the fire incident did not take place on account of blast in the same (compressor). Thus, the complainant failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties.
23. For the reasons recorded above, finding the complaint to be devoid of any merit, the same is dismissed with no order as to cost.
24. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
25. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
12 /09/2014 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER [RETD.] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[DEV RAJ] MEMBER Sd/-
[PADMA PANDEY] MEMBER cmg