DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 898/2017
D.No.__________________ Date: ________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
Ms. POOJA GUPTA,
W/o SH. NEERAJ GUPTA,
R/o KU-17, 2nd FLOOR,
PITAM PURA, DELHI-110088.… COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. BAJAJ ELECTRICALS LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGER (CUSTOMER CARE),
No.51, 2nd FLOOR, MULLA HOUSE,
MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD,
MUMBAI-400001.
2. MORE RETAIL LTD.,
(FORMERLY ADITYA BIRLA RETAIL LTD.),
THROUGH ITS MANAGER/INCHARGE
CUSTOMER CARE,
DELHI ROHINI HYPERMARKET, CITY CENTER,
PLOT No.-1-B-3, TWIN DISTRICT CENTRE,
SEC.-10, ROHINI, DELHI-110085. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 03.11.2017
Date of decision:03.06.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs underSection 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 thereby alleging
CC No.898/2017 Page 1 of 7
that the complainant purchased a Food Processor of Bajaj Master Chef Food Processor model no. 8901308713864 on 24.12.2015 from OP-2 and after one month of purchase the said Food Processor was not properly working as the mother belt of the said machine was of low quality and it was not working properly and due to that the machine was not working accurately. The complainant further alleged that the complainant complainedto OP many times on various dates i.e. 26.08.2016, 21.12.2016, 01.02.2017, 18.05.2017, 09.09.2017 and called OP-1 & OP-2 to replace the same which was under warrantee period and the complainant is facing the same problem since the purchase of the said Food Processor and spent lots of money for the repair of the same and till date the said problem of the food processor is not fixed by OP-1 which causes great mental trauma, mental and physical harassment and monetary harassment. The complainant further alleged that the complainant tried to approach several times and occasions to OP-2 but OP-2 did not help the complainant regarding the fixing of the problems of the said Food Processor and the said Food Processor is now dead and not working and the complainant is not enjoying the benefit of the said Food Processor and lastly the complainant called OP-1 for the repair of the said Food Processor on 09.09.2017 and the complainant received reference no. DEL-0909170012608680-1 through SMS but till date 21.09.2017 the said complaint is not
CC No.898/2017 Page 2 of 7
resolved by OP-1. On 19.09.2017, a person who represented himself as an employee of OP-1 called the complainant through mobile no.9560130213 at 4:54 P.M. and said to the complainant that “Tumhe Jo Karna Hai Kar Lo” and he disconnected the call and the complainant served the legal notice dated 21.09.2017 through her Counsel to OPs by speed post but OPs did not give any reply to the notice of the complainant till date and the complainant has suffered a loss and there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaintpraying for direction to OPs to replace the said Food Processor with new one with better quality as well as compensation of Rs.85,000/- for causing her mental pain, agony and has also sought Rs.15,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. OPs have been contesting the case and filed their separate replies. In its reply OP-1 submitted that the 1st call was registered on 26.08.2016 vide complaint no.10364204 and the same was resolved on 29.08.2016. OP-1 further submitted that the grinder jar was repaired during the service and it possibly got jammed because of accumulation of dust and 2nd complaint of the said product was registered on 24.11.2016 vide complaint no. 10901385 and the citrus cone of juicer found crack which was replaced on 28.11.2016. OP-1 further submitted that 3rd complaint of the said product was registered on 21.12.2016 vide complaint no. 11076726
CC No.898/2017 Page 3 of 7
and OLP got trip out, probably because of motor gets overloaded and call was addressed & resolved on 23.12.2016 and the 4th complaint of the said product was registered on 13.02.2017 vide complaint no.11400873 and the belt of the motor found broken, perhaps because of motor getting overloaded and it was repaired on 16.02.2017 and 5th complaint of the said product was registered on 18.05.2017 vide complaint no.11928908, once again the belt of the motor found cracked and it was resolved on 23.05.2017. OP-1 further submitted that 6th complaint of the said product was registered on 09.09.2017 vide complaint no.12608680 and the complainant did not allow OP-1 & declined for carrying necessary & requisite product repairs and thus OP-1 had concern every time and the same was resolved up to the complainant satisfaction and the technician of OP-1 work as per prescribed operating methodology and the product failed as it was run overloaded.
4. In its reply OP-2 submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complaint is not maintainable against OP-2. OP-2 further submitted that OP-1 is the manufacturer of the said product and the same is sold under the warrantee provided them i.e. Bajaj India Pvt. Ltd. OP-1, and the complainant failed to appreciate the fact that OP-2 i.e. More Mega Store is only a retailer and not a manufacturer of the said product and OP-2 has sold the product to the complainant on as is where basis as per the
CC No.898/2017 Page 4 of 7
warrantee as given by OP-1 as a principle manufacturer of the product.
5. The complainant filed replication to the reply of OP-2 only and denied the contentions of OP-2.
6. In order to prove her case, the complainant filed her affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant has also placed on record copy of retail invoice/CM no.1210111564 dated 24.12.2015 of Rs.4,800/- from OP-2, copy of legal notice dated 21.09.2017 sent by the complainant through her Counsel to OPs by speed post alongwith postal receipts and tracking reports and copy of her Voter ID card.
7. On the other hand, Sh. Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Manager (Sales Support) of OP-1 and Sh. Vinod Tiwari, Assistant Manager-Legal of OP-2 filed their separate affidavits in evidence which are as per line of defence taken by OPs in their replies. OP-2 also filed copy of letter of authority. OPs have also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant and OPs in the light of evidence and documents placed on record by the parties.The case of the complainant has remainedconsistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant. It is proved from the pleadings of the parties and evidence of the parties that the complainant purchased the disputed product i.e. Bajaj Master Chef 3.0 Food processor of Rs.4,800/- from OP-2 on 24.12.2015 and the food processor
CC No.898/2017 Page 5 of 7
stopped working properly immediately after its purchase and many times the complainant lodged the complaint with OP-1 for resolution of the defect. Though, OP-1 through its technicians try to remove the defects in the product but the defect could not be permanently resolved. A customer is not expected to lodge complaint frequently for the repair of its newly purchased product and the product is expected to be free from defect of any nature. Frequent lodging of complaint of the disputed product shows that there is an inherent and manufacturing defect in the product. Failure on the part of OP-1 to replace the disputed product with new one amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.Accordingly, we hold OP-1being the manufacturer of the product as guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
9. Accordingly, OP-1 is directed as under:
i) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.4,000/- being the depreciated cost of the disputed product on return of the old product and original bill.
ii) To pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.
10. The above amount shall be paid by OP-1to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing which OP-1shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% perannum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the
CC No.898/2017 Page 6 of 7
date of payment. If OP-1fails to comply the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, thecomplainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
11. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 3rdday of June, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No.898/2017 Page 7 of 7
UPLOADED BY: SATYENDRA JEET
