Date of filing :16.08.2016 Date of order :04.02.2022 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 839 OF 2016 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 2 OF 2016 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : BEED L.G.Electronics India Pvt.Ltd., Plot No.302, Opposite to Hotel Ramgiri, N-3, CIDCO, Jalna Road, Aurangabad.

Through its Service Engineer, Ajitesh Kumar Narendra Kumar, Plot No.302, Opposite to Hotel Ramgiri, N-3, CIDCO, Jalna Road, Aurangabad. …APPELLANT VERSUS

1. Gaensh Santu Rode, R/o Murshadpur, Tq. & Dist.Beed.

2. Laxman T. Tekwani, Prop.Akash Enterprises, Sarda Sankul, Subhash Road, Beed, Tq. & Dist.Beed. …RESPONDENTS CORAM : Smt.S.T.Barne, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

Present : Adv.Mr.R.S.Kasar for appellant, Adv.Kawade/Barate for respondent No.1, Adv.S.T.Agrawal for respondent No.2.

J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 04/02/2022)

Per Mr.K.M.Lawande, Hon’ble Member.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.07.2016 passed by District Forum , Beed in C.C.No.2/2015 , appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. The appellant is the opponent No.1, the respondent No.1 is the complainant and respondent No.2 is opponent No.2 in complaint No.2/2016 before District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum. The appellant and respondent are hereinafter referred to as ‘opponent ’ and ‘complainant’ as per their status in the complaint and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum is referred to as ‘District Forum’ for the sake of convenience.

3. It is the case of complainant that he is resident of village Murshadpur in Beed district and is farmer by occupation. He purchased refrigerator of LG company from the dealer , opponent No.2 on 29/11/2014 for Rs.13,700/-. The warranty of 2 years was informed to the complainant. The opponent No.1 is the manufacturer. The refrigerator performed well for nearly 12 months. However ,on 08/11/2015, it blasted suddenly with noise and resulted into fire. In the said fire, the family utensils, food materials, other materials were lost. The complainant informed the incident police station, Gram Sevak and Talathi. These Officers have drawn panchnama of loss of 7 lacs to the complainant. It is alleged that , before the incidence of fire, the complainant had requested opponent No.2 to check the refrigerator; however, it was told to complainant that noise is not a cause of worry. The opponent No.1 and 2 have sold the defective piece of refrigerator to the complainant. Though, the complainant asked compensation to opponents; however, they replied evasively. The complainant also issued legal notice to the opponents, however the notice was also not replied. Observing deficiency in service ,the Complainant filed consumer complaint before the District Forum seeking directions to direct opponent to pay Rs.7,26,500/- towards the compensation with 18% interest.

(4)(i) The opponent No.1 appeared before the District Forum and submitted written statement and denied the rival allegations. It is replied that the opponent No.1 is the manufacturing company and actual sale of the materials is effected through their dealers. Before making any product available for sale the product is checked by the manufacturing company. The opponent No.1 never informs the customer regarding guarantee and warranty of their product. The opponent No.1 is not having knowledge of the purchase of the refrigerator by the complainant and the price at which it was sold. The complainant is wrongly alleging that the refrigerator sold to him suffered with defects. The panchanamas drawn reveal that the accident occurred due to fluctuation in electricity voltage/supply . The complainant has not filed the report of Electrical Inspector and he has also not included the MSEDCL company as party to the litigation and on that count the complaint is liable for dismissal. There is suspicion about the receipts filed on record by the complainant for the materials lost in the fire.

(4)(ii) From the impugned judgmen