CHANDIGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T.
Raj Shekhar Attri, President, Padma Pandey, Member, Rajesh K. Arya, Member and Preetinder Singh, Member
BSH Household Appliances
Manufacturing Private Limited – Appellant
versus
Nimrat Gujral – Respondent
Appeal No. 122 of 2022
Decided on 15.12.2022

IMPORTANT POINT
Electrical appliances - Mere installing the electrical appliances is not enough to ensure their safe and smooth functioning but it is also required of the Company engineers who came to install such appliances to ensure that necessary mechanism to provide constant voltage.

Headnote:

A. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 2(7)(i), S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission - Services – Product Liability - Sanitary Sales - Whether the respondent is a consumer - When a person hires services, he/she may hire it for himself/herself or for any other person. In such cases, the beneficiary (or user) of these services is also a consumer. Therefore, the objection raised in this regards is rejected being not tenable in the eyes of law. [Para 9]

B. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 2(7)(i), S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission - Services Product Liability - Sanitary Sales - Installation of electrical Appliances – fluctuations and high voltage - Proper Instructions by the Consumer - Before installation of the electrical appliance, had the appellant given instructions to the respondent/complainant to install equipments to prevent damage due to high voltage or fluctuation in voltage, the matter would have been different. However, the appellant has failed to establish that any such instructions were ever given to the complainant or to her husband before installation of the appliances, which could have prevented huge loss to the complainant. Mere installing the electrical appliances is not enough to ensure their safe and smooth functioning but it is also required of the Company engineers who came to install such appliances to ensure that necessary mechanism to provide constant voltage, without any fluctuation therein, whether it is stabilizer or any other required equipment, should have been installed there, either at the cost of the consumer or provided alongwith such appliances by charging the consumer, if he so desires – therefore, when the consumer is made aware about the sustainability and sensitivity of such appliances to fluctuation in voltage, which in the instant case, the appellant failed to do. Either the said appliances ought to have inbuilt stabilizers and if not, then the appellant was to suggest all necessary measures to the respondent before installation thereof to avoid any kind of damage to the appliances due to high voltage - Therefore, the argument raised that instructions were passed on to the complainant at the time of installation cannot be accepted. [Para 11].

C. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 2(7)(i), S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission - Services Product Liability - Sanitary Sales - Installation of electrical Appliances – fluctuations and high voltage – proof and procedure – evidence – Whether evidence with regard to the averment that other appliances in respondent’s premises like air conditioner, fans, elevator etc. were functioning without any difficulty after the occurrence of the voltage issue was properly considered - It is not so, that every time, all the appliances became defective due to voltage fluctuation but in the instant case, it is admitted position on record that the appliances sold by the appellant to the respondent stopped working, when there was high voltage – Thus, there was no need for the appellant to produce any evidence with regard to other electrical appliances installed in her home. [Para 12].

D. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 2(7)(i), S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission - Services - Product Liability - Sanitary Sales - Replacement of all the appliances still under warranty free of cost - Opposite Party was under obligation to check the suitability of the product for the complainant’s facility and provide proper installation of the appliances with due care and precautions for avoiding any damages. Holding deficiency in rendering service and indulgence into unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party, the Ld. District Commission rightly held that the Opposite Party was under obligation to replace all the appliances still under warranty free of cost. [Para 13].

E. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S.15[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 2(7)(i), S.41] – Appeal Against order of District Commission - Services - Product Liability - Sanitary Sales – Installation of external stabilizer -No inherent manufacturing defect - the appellant was under no obligation to install external stablizers within the premises of the respondent under the warranty card of any other law unless expressly stated in its terms and conditions and that there is no inherent manufacturing defect in the appliances of the appellant and the respondent did not bring on record any expert opinion to establish any such defect, it may be stated here that no doubt, the appliances are very much covered under international warrant up-to 20.07.2023 and per documents on record, those appliances got defective during the warranty period due to high voltage and the appellant, as discussed above, failed to pass on necessary instructions before installation of said appliances, to the respondent, to take necessary precautionary measures to control the said fluctuation by installing stabilizers etc – Therefore, for any damage occurred to the appliances during warranty period, due to negligence on the part of the appellant, the appellant is liable to rectify the defect(s) free of charge, without charging any fee from the respondent, which the Ld. District Commission has rightly ordered to be refunded to the respondent besides other relief – Thus appeal is dismissed. [Para 14, 15].