MOHAMMED ASIF vs Crompton Greaves Ltd.

THESE two appeals arise out of one order passed by the District Forum in O.P. No. 336/1996one by the complainants and the other by the opposite party. Hence they can be dealt with by a single order here.

THE case of the two complainants is that they purchased 8 fans of 200 mm. manufactured by the opposite party-Company from a retail shop on 3.11.1987. THEy were fitted in their residence by experienced and qualified electricians. On 7.4.1996, when the 1st complainant Mohammed Asif was sitting on a cot in his bed, the. fan in his room fell down on his head resulting in injuries. He was hospitalised for three days and further treatment continued in his house till 30.4.1996. Due to shock, he suffered cardiac problem also. As Chairman of Tamil Nadu Wakf Board and M.L.A., he could not attend to his work because of the head injury. On being informed of the incident, a team of top officials of the opposite party-Company visited the complainants'' house on 3.5.1996. THEy were satisfied that the bolt in the fan gave way due to manufacturing defect and hence they ordered replacement of the existing bolts with thicker and larger bolts. THE complainants sent a letter dated 5.5.1996 to the opposite party claiming a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs. But they sent a reply dated 20.5.1996 repudiating the claim. Hence the complaint. The opposite party in their written version contended that the fans having been purchased as early as 3.11.1987 i.e., almost 9 years before, the claim is barred by limitation. The 1st complainant in his letter to the opposite party, has not referred to any cardiac problem as a result of the incident. On receipt of the telephonic gall from the 1st complainant on 3.5.1996, considering the status of the 1st complainant, the officials of the opposite party rushed to his house only with a view to maintain the goodwill of the Company. Generally, the guarantee or warranty in respect of electrical goods is for a period of 12 months or so. The falling of the fan has nothing to do with the quality of the fan. It was only due to improper tightening of the screws the bolt got eroded. Therefore the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount as compensation.

The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that it was only due to the manufacturing defect in the fan, it should have fallen down and it is a fact that the 1st complainant had suffered head injury and for the treatment of the same he had spent a sum of Rs. 28,000/-. Further finding that the complainants should have suffered shock and mental agony due to the incident, the District Forum granted a total compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. It further ordered costs of Rs. 500/-.

AGAINST this order, the complainant has filed A.P. No. 397/1997 for enhancement of the compensation awarded, and the opposite party has filed A.P. No. 418/1997 for setting aside the order of the District Forum. First we would consider whether the finding of the District Forum that the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainants is not correct as it is now contended by the opposite party in their appeal. It is not in dispute that the fan in question was manufactured by the opposite party and that had been purchased about 9 years ago (according to the complainants it was purchased on 3.11.1987). It is also not seriously disputed that the fan had fallen down on 7.4.1996. According to the complainants, the fan fell down due to the manufacturing defect in that the bolt gave way or broke which caused the fall of the fan. The opposite party would contend to the effect that the bolt should have given way or broken due to there as on of improper tightening of the bolt on account of which it should have got eroded due to the rubbing action of the fixing bolt between the fan shaft and down rod (See Ex. B-2 letter dated 20.5.1996 of the opposite party to die complainants). The case of the complainants appears to be that the bolt had given way or broken and that had happened only due to the manufacturing defect. It is not stated anything as to the nature of the defect. From the mere reason that the bolt gave way or had broken, it cannot be presumed that there was manufacturing defect. As seen above, the opposite parties would contend that bolt might have given way or had broken because of the rubbing action of the fixing bolt between the fan shaft and down rod during the course of 9 years due to improper tightening of the bolt at the time of installation. This contention of the opposite party cannot be dismissed or ignored as untenable or improbable especially considering the long lapse of time i.e., about 9 years. There is no justification to do so. This being the position, it cannot be definitely held that the falling of the fan happened only because of any manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainants. A broken bolt has been marked as MO-1 alleging it to be the broken bolt in question. On examining the same also, we find erosion in one part of it which clearly appears to be due to some friction. Thus it is manifest that the contention of the opposite party is highly probable. Consequently therefore, it cannot be believed that the fan had fallen down only because of manufacturing defect as alleged by the complainants.

NEXTLY, we find that the District Forum is in error also in believing the allegation that the 1st complainant had suffered injury due to the falling of the fan. According to the complainants, as it is pleaded, the Ist complainant had suffered head injuries and also cardiac problem. Ex. A-3 is a letter dated 5.5.1996 from the 1st complainant to the opposite party. In that letter, while mentioning about the head injuries, no whisper has been made about any cardiac problem. Therefore, clearly, the allegation of cardiac problem of the Ist complainant is an after-thought. Even the allegation that the 1st complainant had suffered head injury also stands unproved. The only evidence let in by the complainants in this regard is Ex. A-2 as the medical bill. This is only a bill said to have been issued by one Dr. Aslam Yousuf of a Poly Clinic wherein various charges have been mentioned against various treatments narrated therein. But this bill has not been proved by the said Doctor and the said Doctor has not been examined before the District Forum, and no reason has been given for the same. Not even an affidavit from him has been filed. As such, the complainants have failed to prove the alleged injury to the 1st complainant and also the alleged loss or damages as stated by them. On this ground also the order of the District Forum is liable to be set aside. In the result, A.P. No. 418/1997 filed by the opposite party is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. In view of the order passed in A.P. No. 418/1997, A.P. .No. 397/1997 filed by the complainants is dismissed, but without costs. Minority Order Pulavar V.S. Kandasamy, Member-I regret that I do not agree with the majority order in this case. 2. The facts relating to both the appeals are given briefly in the majority order. 3. It is not in dispute that when the 1st complainant was sitting in his house, the ceiling fan crashed on his head, when it was in full swing. It is also not in dispute that as a result of the injury caused on account of the sudden fall of the fan on his head, the first complainant was hospitalised. Any person undergoing such a nightmarish experience would have felt serious shock, if not nervous break down. The District Forum, in its well-considered order, after considering the evidence and pleadings in this case, has come to a categorical finding that the sudden fall of the fan was due to the fact that the bolt, which was intended to keep the ceiling fan intact, had broken into two. This fact is not disputed by the opposite party. The question for consideration is why the bolt broke into two. While the respondents/complainants have asserted that the bolt gave way because of manufacturing defect, the appellant/opposite party has contended that it was due to improper tightening of the bolt. 4. The broken bolt and the damaged fan were placed before us for inspection as Exhibits. A careful look of the bolt clearly shows that the bolt broke into two vertically. If the reason for the breakage of the bolt was due to improper tightening, there must have been erosion on it. In the absence of such erosion, I agree with the finding of the District Forum, which had also occasion to see the broken bolt, nut and the fan, that the incident was not the result of any imperfect installation of the fan or tightening of the rod, but due to manufacturing defect. 5. Another significant factor which has to be borne in mind in thi s case is that the officers of the opposite party who came to see the first complainant, after seeing the broken bolt, had replaced all the other existing bolts by new modified and durable bolts, which were manufactured with new technique. If the fall of the fan was due to improper tightening of the bolt or nut, there must have been some erosion on the existing bolts. They too did not report any such erosion. 6. In view of the foregoing, I have little hesitation to hold that the bolt of the fan broke into two because of manufacturing defect, resulting in the sudden fall of the fan. 7. Apparently, the manufacturing defect in this case was latent and it existed undetected and it came to light only in the year 1996 when the bolt broke into two and the fan fall on the head of the 1st complainant. Hence, the objection raised by the opposite party on the technical ground of time limit cannot be sustained. 8. The grounds of appeal in A.P. No. 418/ 1997 put forward by the appellant/opposite party are rather mechanical. The opposite party is indulging in too much of technicalities. In this connection, it is necessary to bear in mind what the National Commission has stated in the case of Shankar Prasad v. The Peerless General Finance Investment & Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in II (1995) CPJ 251 (NC)=V-VI 1995 (2) CPR 253 (NC) : "It is true that the orders of the Redressal Forums under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, which undoubtedly are quasijndidal, have to be based on acceptable evidence which may be either direct or circumstantial but the proceedings under the Act should be tilted against the hypertechnicalities." The opposite party's observation that there was no serious external head injury on the 1st complainant, is shocking, if not offending, the human conscience. It is not necessary that in every case of physical harm, there should be external injury. Serious physical damage and harm can be caused without external injury. For instance, in majority of the cases of alleged torture of accused by law enforcing agencies, physical harm is without external injury. Did that mean that there was no physical damage or mental agony to the persons concerned? This is a flimsy argument and it deserves to be ignored with contempt. According to modern mecdical experts, internal injury is more dangerous than the external injury, especially in cases like the one on hand because, if unattended, internal injury would lead to silent and certain death. As regards the medical expenses (Ex. A-2) of about Rs. 28,000/- incurred, there is no serious objection by the opposite party except saying that the Doctor who treated the 1st complainant had not been examined. Suffice it to say that the Consumer Fora follow summary procedure in deciding cases and it is not in every case of consumer dispute oral evidence should be taken. If the opposite party really entertained any doubt about the genuineness of the medical bills, they could have summoned the Doctor and examined him on oath. They did not do so. To say at the appellate stage that the medical bills may not be genuine because the Doctor was not examined, is an after-thought and a feeble attempt to escape from the liability. If the 1st complainant had not suffered injury and shock, he would not have been admitted in the hospital and treated. A person of the status and standing of the 1st complainant does not go to hospital for pleasure or sight seeing.

INCIDENTALLY, it is pertinent to mention that the 1st complainant is a leading social personality and he was a Cabinet Minister and Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Wakf Board for a long time. It is well-known to the people in this part of the country that in his public life, he has set an example of honesty and integrity. To say that such a person, whose viable economic status is well-known, has resorted to preferring false medical claim, just for the sake of getting a few thousand rupees from the opposite party, does not stand to reason. Still, the opposite party thought it fit to resort to this plea. After all, we have to bear in mind that this is a land in which even Sita was compelled to take fire bath to prove her chastity.

IN the light of the discussion above, the order of the District Forum, in which a sum of Rs. 30,000/- is granted as compensation is upheld. There is no material infirmity or procedural irregularity in the order of the District Forum. The compensation granted by the District Forum seems to be adequate to meet the ends of justice.

Notwithstanding the persuasive arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/opposite party, I do not find any scope for interference with the well considered order passed by the District Forum.

IN the result, both the appeals are dismissed and the order of the District Forum is confirmed. No costs. Ordered accordingly.