STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

M/s TTK Prestige Limited, an existing company within the meaning of Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Plot No.38, SIPCOT Industrial Complex, Hosur – 635 126 and its corporate office at 11th floor, Brigade Towers, No.135,Brigade Road, Bangalore 560025 through its Service Manager – Mr. Rakesh Dutta.

… Appellant/OP-3

V E R S U S

1.       Mr. Amit Chauhan residing at House No.590, Tribune Colony, Village Kansal, District Mohali.

… Respondent No.1/Complainant

2.       M/s Apni Rasoi Kitchen Appliances, by its proprietor, DSS-259, Sector 20, Panchkula.

3.       M/s Teg Enterprises, through its Manager, SCO 62-63, First Floor, Sector 17-A, Chandigarh.

                                                ..… Proforma Respondents

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:     JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                   MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by: Sh. Naveen Batra, Adv. for the appellant

                   Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Adv. for respondent No.1

                   Respondents No.2 & 3 already exparte.

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                    This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), is directed against the order dated 3.3.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No.1 and directed the OPs to replace the damaged chimney with a brand new one of the same make or model and in case of its non-availability, to refund cost thereof i.e. Rs.8,800/-; also pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation within thirty days, failing which they were to pay the entire amount alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till the payment was actually made.

2.                     The facts, in brief, are that the complainant purchased a Prestige Kitchen Hood (electronic chimney) from OP-1 vide invoice dated 26.9.2009 for Rs.8,800/- which was having warranty of two years.  It was alleged that one day when his sister was cooking in the kitchen, the said chimney caught fire in which some kitchen items also got burnt. He contacted OP-1 but it dilly dallied the matter.  Thereafter he served a legal notice dated 12.6.2010 on OP-1 after which it asked the complainant to approach OP-2 whereafter he took the chimney to OP-2.  OP-2 issued job sheet dated 21.7.2010 but asked him to pay in advance in order to get the chimney repaired, though the same was within the warranty period. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Act.

3.                     In its written reply OP-3 admitted the purchase of the chimney by the complainant. However, it was stated that the same was free from any defect as the complainant used the same without any problem whatsoever from September 2009 to May 2010.  It was submitted that on receipt of complaint, OP-3 deputed its Service Technician to the residence of the complainant on 1.6.2010 who inspected the damaged chimney and opined that the damage was caused solely due to improper handling/maintenance of the chimney. On completion of inspection, the Service Technician vide job card No.T-184 dated 1.6.2010 recommended the complainant to bring the chimney to the service center of OP-2 for replacement and servicing of the damaged parts, several of which on chargeable basis, but the complainant refused to sign the job card.  Thereafter as per the recommendations of the Service Technician, the complainant approached OP-2 on 21.7.2010 and requested to service the damaged chimney but on the very next day he requested OP-2 over phone not to carry out repair work until further instructions.  However, on 11.8.2010 the complainant reached the service center of OP-2 and demanded a brand new chimney and upon denial by OP-2 the complainant took back the chimney. Remaining averments were denied, being wrong.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. 

4.                     On 27.10.2010, Sh. Manoj Kumar, proprietor of OP-1 appeared and gave a statement that OP-1 adopts the reply filed by OP-3.  However, thereafter when the case was fixed for evidence of the parties, none appeared on its behalf and, therefore, OP-1 was proceeded against exparte. 

5.                     None appeared on behalf of OP-2 despite service, hence it was proceeded against exparte.

6.                     The contesting parties led their evidence.

7.                     After hearing the ld. Counsel for the contesting parties and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above.

8.                     Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/OP-3.

9.                     We have heard the ld. Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully. 

10.                  The contention of OP-3/appellant is that the fire took place due to the fault of the complainant because he did not clean the filter every week, as required.  In support of his contention, he referred to Annexure B which is user’s manual and this direction finds mention in the heading ‘Use and Care tips for your Prestige Kitchen Hood’. The ld. Counsel for the complainant denied if the user’s manual was ever supplied to the complainant or if the complainant was ever made aware of the fact that the filter was to be cleaned every week.  The contention of the counsel is that only a warranty card (Annexure C-2) was given to him showing that the kitchen hood carried a warranty of two years.  We have gone through Annexure C-1, which is the retail invoice vide which the chimney was sold to the complainant.  There is no mention in Annexure C-1 if the user’s manual was supplied to the complainant. OP-3 filed a reply alongwith affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Dutta in which also no such fact was mentioned if alongwith the chimney the user’s manual was given to the complainant. The user’s manual is mentioned in para 9 of the affidavit of Rakesh Batta, which is to the following effect :-

“9.     I state that, according to the Service Technician, the fire damage to the chimney was caused solely due to improper handling/maintenance of the chimney, contrary to what advised in the user’s manual. The Technical inspection and analysis report drawn by the Service Technician, alongwith User’s Manual are produced and marked as Exhibit B & C for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Forum.”

It shows that user’s manual was shown to the complainant only after the incident had taken place and not before that.  In such a situation, the OPs could not expect the complainant to clean the filter every week.  This by itself was deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

11.                  OP-3 produced the user’s manual (Annexure B) alongwith their reply. The conditions of warranty are mentioned at page 10 of the user’s manual. Condition No.2 says that the kitchen hood is to be serviced by the Company Regional Service Centre or by its Authorized Service Centre only.  There is no mention in the conditions of warranty if the cleaning is to be done by the complainant at his own level.         

12.                  If the chimney caught fire due to any such allegation, as mentioned by OP-3, for that it is OP-3 who was responsible and not the complainant. The OP was, therefore, liable to repair/replace the chimney free of cost because the same is within warranty period.

13.                  The ld. Counsel for the appellant has also argued that the ld. District Forum has imposed a compensation of Rs.10,000/- on the OP alongwith litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- and it is also directed to replace the chimney worth Rs.8,800/- or pay the said amount.  His contention is that the complainant is being enriched unnecessarily and the compensation is disproportionate to the grievance leveled by the complainant.  We find some merit in this argument.  In fact when the OP has been directed to repair or replace the chimney and in its absence to refund the amount of Rs.8,800/-, it would be unjust to further direct the OP to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation. 

14.                  In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present appeal succeeds in part. The impugned order is accordingly modified to the extent that the OP/appellant would be liable to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- instead of Rs.10,000.  The remaining directions given by the ld. District Forum shall remain the same. The parties shall bear their own costs.

                    Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

14^th November, 2011

[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

PRESIDENT

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg