Orissa

Sambalpur

CC/66/2021

Shankar Bhanja, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Bajaj Electricals Ltd., Represented through its CEO Sri Shekhar Bajaj, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. G.P. Lal & associates

21 Sep 2022

ORDER

PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

Consumer Case No- 66/2021

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. Sadananda Tripathy, Member,

Shankar Bhanja, aged about 43 years

S/o- Ramesh Chandra Bhanja,

R/o- Kumbharpada, PO/PS-Dhanupali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768001, Odisha                                   ...………..Complainant

                                                Versus

1. Bajaj Electricals Ltd.,

Represented through its CEO Sri Shekhar Bajaj,

45/47 Veer Nariman Road, Mumbai-400001

Maharastra, India            

2. Bhajika & Sons

Represented through its Proprietor Manoj Kumar Agrawal,

At-Laxmi Talkies Road, Hindi High School Building,

Po-Sambalpur, Ps-Town, Dist-Sambalpur              …………...Opp.Parties

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant                   :-Sri.G.P.Lal, Advocate & Associates
2. For the O.P.1                                :- Ex parte
3. For the O.P. No.2                                    :- Smt. S.Mohanty

 

Date of filing:16.11.2021 Date of Hearing :18.07.2022, Date of Judgement :21.09.2022

      Presented by Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President.

1. The case of the Complainant is that on 14.10.2021 the Complainant purchased one Bajaj Electricals induction cook top from O.P. No.2 for an amount of Rs. 2900/- and due to rush in the shop of O.P. No.2 instead of 2000 watt ultra induction cook top brought a 1400 watt capacity push bottom cook top which he came to know after coming to his house and verification. On 15.102021 the Complainant requested the O.P. No.2 to replace the cook top and agreed to pay the differential amount. The Complainant asked the O.P. No.2 to replace the cash memo and issue a fresh cash memo for the 2000 watt cook top but the O.P. No.2 denied to issue fresh warranty card. The O.P. No.2 issued the slip that “this product is not exchangeable because warrant card is filled up.” The Complainant became aggrieved with the sarcastic remarks and words, became humiliated and returned without replacement. The Complainant without his will kept the cook top and forcibly delivered with a unwilling product. The matter was informed to the customer care of the O.P. No.1 but the O.P. no.1 remained silent. By sale of unwilling product the O.P. no.1 is unfair in his trade practice and liable for compensation.
2. The O.P. No.1 has been set ex-parte due to non appearance.
3. The O.P. No.2 in its version submitted that the Complainant has purchased the cook top after verification and inspection of the product. The Complainant purchased 1400 watt cook top and on his request the O.P. No.2 was ready to exchange the product. The O.P.No.2 was ready to exchange the product is not true. It is true that the O.P.No.2 wrote this product is not exchangeable as because against one product one warranty card is available. The Complainant used slanged language and wanted to show him his power and undue influence. The Complainant used the cook top for exchange the product without complying the warranty policy. The Complainant filed this case falsely and claimed Rs. 1.lakh for cheating and violation of warranty policy of the company.
4. Perused the documents filed by the Complainant. The O.P. no.2 has not filed any documents. From the pleading of the parties it reveals that there is exchange of words between the parties on 15.10.2021 when the Complainant went to the shop of O.P. No.2 for exchange the O.P. said that warranty card is issued once. The O.P. No.2 in his version in an argumentative way gave the reply. The reply is neither assertive nor negative. The O.P.No.2 not replied whether the O.P. No.1 has policy to exchange a product after a purchaser ready and willing to pay the differential amount of the product like instant case. No documents to the effect has been filed. The O.P. No.2 in a negative way claimed compensation from the Complainant although he knows very well that the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is a welfare legislation and the Consumer has the right to choice.

In the present case no. doubt it was the duty of the complaint that while purchasing a product, he should verify, inspect and only thereafter to purchase the product. On 14.10.2021 as the Complainant took the product to his house paying Rs. 2900/-, it indicates that he is satisfied and purchased.

5. The Complainant on 15.10.2021 when went to the shop of O.P. No.2, the O.P. No.2 clearly denied to give the guarantee card of 2000watt popular ultra induction cook top. The O.P. No.2 in his version not stated specifically whether he was ready to receive the differential amount or not. Rather the O.P. No.2 has taken the plea that after six months the complainant came and intended to exchange, which is total false hood. On 15.10.2021, the O.P. no.2 after hot exchange wrote that “this product is not refundable as warranty card is filled up.” This is the basis of the dispute. As the Complainant has paid for the product and shown his dissatisfaction in dealing of O.P. no.2, this dispute is consumer dispute.
6. No doubt in the retail invoice No. 311 dated 14.10.2021 it is mentioned that “Bajaj Popular ultra Induction” where as in the warranty card “Bajaj Popular Ultra (740069)” mentioned. The O.P. No.2 not mentioned in the memo “1400 Watt” nor the code of the product “740069” it is a major defect in the cash memo. Here question arises why the O.P. No.2 not mentioned the specification. The retailers not mentioned clearly only to push their sale and there is every possibility of manipulation of the documents to show the manufacturing company their product sale.

Good will of a customer and company is the very foundation of the business. The O.P. No.2 has every opportunity to satisfy the customer by replacing the goods after taking the differential amount but in the present case the O.P. No.2 not only misbehaved as alleged by the Complainant but also demanded compensation using words “for the cheating and violation of warranty policy of the Company’’ (para 15 of version) it is not expected from a good retailer.

7. The warranty policy of the O.P. No.1 deals with defects in goods and service and thereby replacement. The O.P. No.2 has not shown any document regarding replacement of a particular product and days of replacement. As replacement of a product is linked with “right to choice of consumer” and as the O.P. No.2 failed to establish, the stand taken by O.P. no.2 is not acceptable. Accordingly, for the disregard to the right to choice of a consumer, the O.P. No.1 and O.P.No.2 are jointly liable. The O.P. No.1 failed to provide proper customer service to the Complainant, failed to provide detail information, even the cost of the product 2000 watt popular ultra induction cook top with touch panel system before this Commission.

Accordingly it is ordered:

6698606.  

The O.P. No.1 & 2 are jointly liable for providing deficiency in service to the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 is directed to take back the induction cook top from the Complainant through O.P. No.2 within one month of this order and provide 2000 watt ultra induction cook top with touch panel system. The Complainant is to pay the differential amount at the time of delivery of product with warranty card on proper receipt of O.P. No.2. In case of non-exchange within the stipulated period, the O.P. No.2 will be liable to pay Rs. 2900/- to the complainant along with compensation of Rs. 5000/- and litigation expenses of Rs. 5000/-.

Further the O.P. No.2 is warned not to misbehave any customer in future.

                   Order pronounced in open court on this 21^st September 2022.

                   Supply free copies to the parties.