Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/750/2017

Anjana Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Atul Plywood - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh K. Sharma

13 Sep 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/750/2017
Date of Institution	:	25/10/2017
Date of Decision	:	13/09/2019

 

Anjana Mishra, aged 66 years, r/o House No.1253, Sector 91, Mohali, Punjab.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Atul Plywood, Showroom No.4, Madhya Marg, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh through its Prop./ Authorised Signatory.

2.     MD, CEO Robam India, A-105, Sector 63, Noida, UP.

3.     Head, Robam India, Unit No.1B, 5^th Floor, Kaledonia, Sahar Road, Off Western Highway, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400069.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. G.S. Yadav, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Parminder Singh, Counsel for OPs

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         The long and short of the allegations are, complainant had purchased one Robam hob and Robam Hood from OP-1, dealer of manufacturers/OPs 2 & 3 which were installed in the kitchen of the complainant on 8.12.2016.  The hood is performing well to the satisfaction of the complainant, but, the hob started giving problem soon after it was installed. The problems relates to utensils rocking when placed on burner seat, long delay in ignition after putting the knob on and occasional blackening of the pan’s bottom due to improper burning of gas. OP-1 was apprised of the problems and technician was deputed but it was not cured. Thereafter various correspondence was exchanged. Even OP-3 had deputed Mr. Dharam Raj, Manager who had participated in the trial and they had assured that it will be replaced subject to approval of the superiors.  Many months have passed, but, it was not replaced and thereafter rather the OPs incorrectly replied, there was no manufacturing defect in the Robam hob model. Hence the present consumer complaint for directing the OPs  to refund the amount of Rs.23,155.55 alongwith interest, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and litigation expense of Rs.15,000/-.
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint and filed their joint reply. The crux of their reply is, experts of the OPs put it on trial and no fault was found in the Robam hob.  It was misconception on the part of the complainant. The OPs after trial had found no manufacturing defect, therefore, it was not replaced.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Replication was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.         During the course of hearing, an application was moved by the complainant vide which the report of expert was sought, which was placed on record to which objections were filed by the OPs. 
5.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
6.         We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
7.         Per pleadings of the parties, the undisputed facts are, OPs 2 & 3 are the manufacturers and OP-1 is the dealer who had sold the Robam Hob to the complainant on 8.12.2016 on payment of Rs.23,155.55.  Not only this, it carried warranty of three years from the date of purchase and the problems repeatedly brought to the notice of the OPs during the period of warranty.  These facts are not in dispute before us at all in view of the respective contentions of the parties.
8.         The moot point which calls the attention of this Forum is the existence of any manufacturing defect in the product liability of Robam Hob. To this effect, complainant had supported her allegations by way of affidavit and with her conduct the allegations are corroborated e.g. many times problems were repeatedly brought to the notice of the OPs and they had also deputed their experts and even at one point of time had assured, it would be replaced as there was existence of manufacturing defect on point of safety etc. Though the said allegations were retracted by the OPs in their reply and evidence led, yet, there was no reason with the buyer to make such like complaints if there was no such defect, as on the same day, complainant had also purchased Robam hood and no problem had been raised with regard to the same.  Rather per paragraph No.3 of the consumer complaint, it is performing to the satisfaction of the complainant.  If the complainant wanted to make a false complaint or to say unjust one, then she could have also included Robam hood in the present consumer complaint, but, it is not the case and, therefore, it speaks of bonafide allegations on the part of the complainant.
9.         On the application of the complainant vide order dated 28.9.2018, a  reference was made to the Bureau of Indian Standards, Northern Regional Laboratory, Industrial Area, SAS Nagar, Mohali, a government organization, and the points framed were it may be inspected on the following problems :-
   1. Utensils rocking when placed on the burner seat which was a serious safety defect;
   2. Long delay in ignition after putting  the knob on;
   3. Occasional blackening of the pan’s bottom due to improper burning of gas.

Their report was received by this Forum and the crux of the report dated 27.12.2018 is reproduced below :-

“1.    Stability All the Burner supports are unstable

                B1    Unstable

                B2    Unstable

                B3    Unstable

                B4    Unstable

                B5    Unstable

 

2.     Time of ignition

                B1    No ignition till 17.4 sec

                B2    2.3 sec

                B3    2.3 sec

                B4    3.4 sec

                B5    No ignition till 12.4 sec

3.     Blackening of utensils

                B1    Soot observed

                B2    Satisfactory

                B3    Satisfactory

                B4    Satisfactory

                B5    Soot observed”

 

The opinion furnished on the questions raised shows, burner was unstable, there was no ignition till 17.4 sec. and soot was observed in the blackening of utensils.  For the purpose of fixing the standard and rationality for guidance of the experts, per order dated 19.11.2018 following method was prescribed:-

“i)    A utensil of suitable size may be placed on burner(s) to check whether they are stable or not;

ii)    Only time in seconds of self ignition of burner(s) may be indicated;

iii)  For blackening of utensils, formation of soot may be checked by placing a aluminum vessel of 150 mm size flat base on burner(s) and filled with suitable quantity of water to be burned on for one hour to check formation of soot, if any.  Temperature of room may be only indicated.  Tests may be done at room temperature and any pressure.”

10.         To this report, OPs furnished objections saying, they were not associated at the time of inspection and trial.  To our mind, their association in the trial was not warranted as the reference was made to the Bureau of Indian Standards, a Govt. of India organization, and their impartiality and integrity can hardly be doubted.  It was not the allegation in the objections, there was any misconduct on the part of the officers i.e. experts of Bureau of Indian Standards, Northern Regional Lab, Mohali.  Hence, their report is to be taken on its face value.  The objections preferred are over ruled.
11.         Per record, we have noticed, complainant is using the said Robam hob w.e.f 8.12.2016 for the last more than 2¾ years, may be with some problem, but, user of the same is there.  Therefore, we would not be awarding any interest on this point in the relief clause.
12.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OPs are directed as under :-

1. To pay the invoice amount of Rs.23,155.55 (say Rs.23,156/-) to the complainant and take back the defective Robam Hob from her premises.
2. to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to her;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

13.         This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
14.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
13/09/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President