By Sri. Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
The complaint filed under S.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
The averment in the complaint is as follows:-
1. On 02-09-2020 the complainant purchased a prestige presser cooker for Rs.1844/- by using online platform of Flipkart . The complainant could use the cooker after receiving one week of its reception because he was in observing quarantine due to covid protocol existed in the state. When it used for cooking, no whistle was come out from the cooker and food became not edible. According to the complainant he was provided with defective cooker by the opposite party. So he contacted Flipkart, Flipkart advised him to contact directly the manufacturer as one week return period was already over. So Flipkart cannot taken back the defective cooker from the complainant.
2. On 29-09-2020 through email, the complainant communicated the manufacturing defect of the cooker, then the manufacturer directed the complainant to contact the service centre located at Ponnani with the pressure cooker. But due to the covid protocol restriction, the complainant could not contact the service centre directly and this situation informed the manufacturer. Then manufacturer proposed to send a technician to the residence of the complainant on a condition to pay the entire cost. But the complainant revealed his reluctance to the payment of cost as defect in manufacture resulted in malfunctioning. So the complainant opposed that he need not bear the expenses of the repairment.
3. Subsequently on 10/10/2020, one technician approached the complainant and taken back pressure cooker. After some days the opposite party informed that defect of pressure cooker has been rectified. But the complainant was reluctant to take back the pressure cooker as it has suffered manufacturing defect. The complainant also suspected future failure in the function of the cooker as it was suffered manufacturing defect. When the complainant demanded for replacement, the servicemen of opposite party denied the same in the pretext of want permission from head office of the company. According to the complainant the opposite party was irresponsibly behaved by not replacing a new pressure cooker. So the complainant approached the Commission to get relief for his grievances. The complainant prayed for replacing the Pressure Cooker with a new one and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and hardship.
4. On admission of the complaint, notice issued to the opposite party. Though opposite received notice remained absent before the Commission, and as a result Commission set the opposite party exparte . But subsequently opposite party filed a petition No .IA 47/2021 to set aside the exparte order and the same was allowed and the opposite party filed version .
5. In the version, the opposite party contended that complaint was not maintainable either on facts or in law . According to the opposite party there is no manufacturing defect to the pressure cooker. The pressure cooker carries ten year warranty against inherent manufacturing defects, if any. The warranty is subject to terms and conditions. The complainant purchased the cooker on 02/09/2020. Complainant approached the opposite party on 02/09/2020. The cooker has to be carried to authorized service centre of the opposite party for warranty services, if any. This point is expressingly mentioned in the user’s Manual terms and conditions, provided along with the cooker. However considering the distance of the authorized service centre from the residence of the complainant , service representative of the opposite party visited the complainant and collected the cooker for inspection at the service centre . The cooker was inspected and no issues were found with the cooker. The complainant alleged improper functioning of the whistle. In the version it is stated that complainant failed to fix the pressure indicator properly, which caused complaint to the whistle. This matter was communicated on 15-10-2020 through email and demanded to take back the pressure cooker for use. According to the opposite party the perfect working of the cooker was video recorded and showed with the complainant through the e mail on the same day. It was stated by the opposite party that the complainant without appreciating the observation of the service representative had demanded for replacement of the cooker. According to the opposite party the complainant has convinced the fact that there is no defect to the cooker. The representative of the opposite party had emailed the complainant to accept the return of the cooker on various occasion, but refused to do the same.
6. In the version it is contended by the opposite party that the terms of warranty constitutes the binding contract between the consumer and the manufacturer and liability of the opposite party is duly governed by the terms of warranty. As per the warranty terms during the warranty period the opposite party is liable to service / repair the cooker, if there exists any manufacturing defect. But in this case there is no defect of what so ever nature in the cooker. It is also appealed by the opposite party that subject to the permission of the Commission, the opposite party is willing to demonstrate the perfect working of the cooker. It is also submitted by the opposite party that all the products manufactured and marketed and sold by the opposite party is of high quality and durable products, which are trusted and used by millions of households in India. And so the opposite party pleaded for dismissal of the complainant.
7. Both the complainant and the opposite party filed affidavits. The complainant filed documents and marked as Ext. A1 to A7. Ext. A1 is the copy of tax invoice showing the price of the pressure cooker paid by the complainant. Ext. A2 is the copy of complaint sent through email on 29/09/2020. Ext. A3 is the copy of reply sent by the opposite party through email dated 29/09/2020. Ext. A4 is the copy of email letter sent by the complainant on 29/09/2020 to the opposite party . Ext. A5 is the copy of reply of email sent by the opposite party demanding charges for service from the complainant. Ext. A6 is the copy of email sent by opposite party to the complainant dated 31-10-2020. Ext. A7 is the copy of reviews and ratings of the cooker displayed in the online site of the opposite party. The opposite party produced documents and marked them as Ext.B1 to B3. Ext. B1 is the authorization letter authorizing its Area service manager to represent the opposite party before the Commission. Ext. B2 is the copies of email communication between the opposite party and this complainant .Ext. B3 is the copy of warranty card of the pressure cooker.
8. Perused affidavits and documents. Heard both sides.
The following points arised for consideration:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
- Relief and cost
9. Point No.1 & 2
The grievance of the complainant was that the pressure cooker purchased from the opposite party suffered manufacture defect. When the complaint was registered , the opposite party collected the cooker in to its nearest service centre of repairment. It came out in evidence that after the completion of its repair the opposite party repeatedly contacted the complainant to return the serviced cooker. But the complainant remained hostile towards the request. On the contrary, the complainant demanded for a replacement . But the opposite party was reluctant towards this demand. From the evaluation of evidence adduced by both sides it is presume crystal clear that cooker purchased from the opposite party was defectively manufactured. At the time of very first use of the cooker, the defect was exposed. These facts are admitted by the opposite party. According to the opposite party the defect is not a serious in nature and the complaint to the whistle of the cooker was a result of failure in fixing the pressure indicator properly by the complainant. This contention of the opposite party cannot be considered as pressure indicator is in built in the cooker at the time of production itself. So the responsibility lies on the manufacturer regarding the fixing of pressure indicator properly. Moreover, pressure cooker needed much accuracy and perfection in its production as there is every chance of risk of life at the time of use.
10. In this context, the communication stated in Ext. B2 series documents regarding the video recording of functioning of cooker has not find any place in the appreciation of evidence. So the malfunctioning of the cooker due to defective manufacturing brought in light before the Commission. The complainant could not use the cooker for preparing food. So the prayer in the complaint for replacement, compensation for mental agony need to be addressed.
11. There is no merit in rising the content of Ext. B3 document by the opposite party. It is admitted fact that cooker was not properly functioning and defect was inherent in nature and there is no evidence to show that pressure indicator was fixed by the complainant. So replacement is the best option for the consumer satisfaction. In the light of above fact and circumstances the commission allows the complaint as follows:-
- The opposite party is directed to replace the pressure cooker with same model new one to the complainant and if the said model is not available in the market refund price of the cooker to the complainant.
- The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant on account of mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant .
- The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest for the above said entire amount from the date of this order till realization.
Dated this 25th day of May , 2022.
Mohandasan . K, President
PreethiSivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
APPENDIX
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A7
Ext.A1: Copy of tax invoice showing the price of the pressure cooker.
Ext.A2: Copy of complaint sent through email on 29/09/2020.
Ext A3: Copy of reply sent by the opposite party through email dated 29/09/2020.
Ext A4: Copy of reply email letter sent by the complainant on 29/09/2020.
Ext A5: Copy of reply of email sent by the opposite party demanding charges for
services from the complainant .
Ext. A6: Copy of email sent by opposite party to the complainant.
Ext. A7: Copy of reviews and ratings of the cooker displayed in the online site of
the opposite party.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B3
Ext.B1: Copy of the authorization letter authorizing its Area service manager to represent the opposite party before the Commission.
Ext.B2: (series) Copy of e mail communication between the opposite party and the
complainant (5 pages)
Ext.B3: Copy of warranty card of the pressure cooker.
Mohandasan . K, President
PreethiSivaraman.C, Member
Mohamed Ismayil.C.V, Member
VPH
