Microtek International Pvt Ltd vs Sanjay Varshney

CHALLENGE in this Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by M/s. Microtek International Pvt. Ltd., is to order dated 21.11.2008 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi, in First Appeal No. 123 of 2007. By the impugned order, the State Commission, while confirming the aspect of deficiency of service, modified the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum V, Delhi, in Complaint Case No. 993 of 2004, and reduced the compensation from Rs. 3,60,000/ - to Rs. 2,50,000/ - while affirming the cost of Rs. 25,000/ - awarded by the District Forum.

THE brief facts as set out in the case are that the Complainant had purchased one Inverter Model: IN -750VA -PLUS Make Microtek, One Battery and One Inverter Trolley for Rs. 4,900/ - and the said price was inclusive of installation and wiring on -site. The Complainant submitted that the said Inverter was installed on 06.07.2003 and as per the warranty terms and conditions, the Opposite Party ought to provide one year of warranty, maintenance, periodical visits, which included one visit after one month for system inspection and thereafter every three months from the date of installation of the said Inverter. The Complainant submitted that the service personnel of the Opposite Party never inspected the said Inverter at his premises.

ON 29.10.2003 at around 06:30 a.m., the Complainant noticed a trickling noise from the said Inverter and the lights fluctuated so he immediately called the land line number of the Opposite Party but there was no response. Thereafter, the Complainant and his wife had left home and at 8.25 a.m., he had got a call from his neighbour that some smoke was detected from his premises. The Fire Officials extinguished the fire for around 2 hours and had reported that the cause of fire was due to the said Inverter as there was short circuit in its unit. The Complainant submitted that he had lost cash and valuable household items including clothes, electrical appliances, furniture, important bank documents etc. and that the fire occurred only because of the short circuit in the defective Inverter. The Opposite Party filed their reply before the District Forum denying that the warranty included periodical visits after one or three months or Inspection of any kind and that there was no complaint lodged by the Complainant. There was fluctuation in the main line which caused the sparking and the Complainant ought to have switched off the main supply which he had neglected to do so. The Opposite Party contended that the digital Inverter is a safe device which has got built -in overload and short circuit protection as is also opined by Dr. S. Mukherjee, Associate Professor of IIT, New Delhi. The Opposite Party contended that no additional protection beyond the regular MCB/fuse protection is available when the main supply is present and that there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.

THE District Forum based on the evidence adduced, allowed the Complaint directing the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 3,60,000/ - as compensation for the items lost and Rs. 25,000/ - towards costs.

AGGRIEVED by the said order, the Opposite Party preferred an Appeal and the State Commission concurred with the order of the District Forum with respect to deficiency of service of the Appellant but reduced the compensation from Rs. 3,60,000/ - to Rs. 2,50,000/ - while affirming the costs of Rs. 25,000/ - awarded by the District Forum.

CHALLENGING the order of the State Commission, the Revision Petitioner submitted that there is no evidence on record that the fire occurred on account of short circuit in the Inverter. The Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Station Officer of Delhi Fire Services filed an affidavit before the District Forum that the appropriate cause of fire mentioned in the report is based on the information given by the persons present at the fire scene and that no formal investigation had been done by them. He further relied on the report given by Dr. S. Mukherjee, Associate Professor, Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme, I.I.T., Delhi which reads as follows: "However, when the normal mains supply is available, then the inverter as mentioned above is in the by -pass mode i.e., the electric mains supply is connected to the house wiring through the inverter. In this condition, if any short circuit or sparking occurs in the wiring, then the Mains Fuse or MCB or other protection provided in the mains (Meter and Distribution board) has to provide the protection as the inverter circuit is essentially bypassed. Consequently, the digital inverter introduces added safety from defects in the house/office wiring if the output is coming from the inverter. No such additional protection, beyond the regular MCB/Fuse protection is available when the mains supply is present".

WE find force in the contention of the Respondent, present in person, that this Report had been given by an Associate Professor of ''Transportation Research and Injury Prevention Programme'' which is not connected with the subject matter in the present case. Further, there are also no substantial reasons given as to why the MCB had failed to provide the necessary protection, if their Inverter had inbuilt short circuit protection measures.

IT is pertinent to note that the Inverter was installed on 06.07.2003 and the fire had occurred on 29.10.2003 and is admittedly covered by one year warranty. We observe from the record that neither the User Manual nor the warranty card with its terms and conditions were filed before the Fora below. The Respondent submitted that since all the documents were engulfed in the said fire, he was not in a position to file the warranty card before the Fora below. Hence, in the present circumstances, the burden of proof shifts on the Petitioner, who had supplied the Inverter, to produce the said warranty card which he had failed to do. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Petitioner produced the User Manual before us. The main contention of the Petitioner that the Respondent was negligent in switching off the Inverter before he had left the house, is untenable, in the light of their own User Manual which reads as follows: "GOING ON VACATIONS 2. Mains input should remain connected to keep the battery always in charged condition".

IT does not anywhere state that the Inverter has to be switched off. It is not necessary that the Respondent should switch off the main line or disconnect the electrical appliances from the mains each time there is a fluctuation. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced, we are of the considered view that the defective Inverter was the cause of the fire accident. The Delhi Fire Service, in its report, stated that domestic articles such as A.C., Fridge, Computer, T.V., Clothes and important bank records were destroyed in the fire. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the State Commission reduced the compensation awarded by the District Forum from Rs. 3,60,000/ - to Rs. 2,50,000/ - while confirming the costs of Rs. 25,000/ -.

WE do not see any jurisdictional error or infirmity in the order of the State Commission and hence, this Revision Petition must fail. It is dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs.