BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAS NAGAR, MOHALI
Consumer Complaint No.517 of 2014
Date of institution: 20.08.2014
Date of Decision: 06.05.2015
Dharmendra Kumar, House No.55, Sector 78, SAS Nagar (Mohali).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. Cata Appliances Limited, No.18, Wing F Block A, 3rd Floor, Local Shopping Centre, Naraina Vihar, Ring Road, New Delhi 110028.
2. M/s. Home Smiths SCF 52, 1st Floor, Phase 3B2, Mohali (Punjab).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
CORAM
Mrs. Madhu. P. Singh, President.
Shri A.B. Aggarwal, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Arvind Behl, Zonal Manager of the OPs.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, President)
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for issuance of following directions to the Opposite Parties (for short ‘the OPs’) to:
(a) refund him Rs.11,300.84 towards price of the defective hob.
(b) pay him Rs.50,000/- towards mental and physical harassment.
(c) pay him Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.
The complainant’s case is that he purchased Hob Model Quartz from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 11.03.2014 for Rs.11,300.84. The height of the PAN support from its base is 50mm and the flame of stove reaches upto a max height of 35 mm, thus there remains an air gap of 10 to 15 mm between flame and base of PAN which causes heat loss in air. The complainant reported about this to OP No.2 by requesting to provide him PAN support of atleast 10 to 15 mm lesser height but it expressed inability and asked the complainant to approach the company. Accordingly, the complainant sent e-mail dated 03.04.2014 followed by telephonic conversation with the representative of the OPs on 04.04.2014 and then again through e-mails dated 09.04.2014, 03.05.2014, 06.05.2014, 08.05.2014 and 29.05.2014. The complainant also sent registered letter to the OPs on 31.05.2014 but the OPs neither responded to the problem nor replied to the e-mails. In his last email dated 06.08.2014 the complainant again requested the OPs to solve his problem and also approached Mr. Bahl, representative of the OPs who expressed his inability. Thus, as per the complainant there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
2. The OPs in the written statement have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands. The allegations are baseless and without any jurisdiction. There was no defect found in the hob and the same is working properly. On merits, it is pleaded that the height mentioned by the complainant has been wrongly measured by him. The technician of the OPs visited the complainant and found that the flame always touches the bottom of the PAN. On receipt of complaint vide email dated 31.03.2014 the OPs immediately directed its local service centre to attend the complaint. The technician immediately visited the complainant who after inspection found no defect which was conveyed to the complainant. The complainant made several complaints without any reason. The OPs vide email dated 25.08.2014 offered to change the PAN but without considering this offer, the complainant has filed the present complaint. Thus, denying any deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of complaint.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavits Ex.CW-1/1 and Ex.CW-1/2; copies of documents Ex.C-1 to C-6 and two photographs Ex.CW-1/2.
4. Evidence of the OPs consist of affidavit of Arvind Behl, Zonal Manager Ex.OP-1/; affidavit of Sanjay Diwan, General Manager Ex.OP-1/2 and copies of documents Ex.OP-1/3 to Ex.OP-1/5. 5. We have heard the complainant and Arvind Behl, Zonal Manager of the OPs and also gone through the written arguments filed by them.
6. The purchase of the product is admitted. The specifications and the details of the product with photographs are Ex.C-2. However, since the date of purchase the complainant has found some defects in the article and reported the matter to the OPs vide E-mail dated 31.03.2014 Ex.C-3. From 31.03.2014 to 25.08.2014 there is exchange of e-mail between the parties and finally during the said period i.e. from 31.03.2014 to 25.08.2014 the OPs have admitted small difference in the height of 3 pan support to the effect that the flame holes are about 12 mm to the top, the grill and black cover has gap about 5mm. The flame height is around 10-15 mm without grill. The 3 pan supports have been very close to the black cover on Burners and these are routine sizes. Pan support to be 35 mm (from the base) is not possible that means grills will be shorter than black cover and smallest height possible would be about 45mm for the 3 pan supports. The grievance of the complainant is that the product sold to him is not as per BIS specifications.
7. Further allegation of the complainant is that it takes longer time to heat the cookware and cook food and further the LPG is wasted and heat energy produced is not utilized fully because thermal efficiency of the product is poor. Thus, the complainant has alleged basic manufacturing defect in the product causing financial loss and mental agony and even threat to his life and property. The complainant has attached BIS specifications regarding domestic gas stove for the use with liquefied petroleum gases.
8. As per the complainant the product sold to him is not as per the BIS specifications. The specifications of the product given to the complainant alongwith invoice dated 11.03.2014 Ex.C-1 do not reveal the detailed specifications except the size (LxWxH) 600x380x95mm.
9. On the contrary the OPs have taken a stand that their product is as per international standard governing the domestic gas stove. The perusal of the record shows that the Ops have failed to produce any international standard followed by them in manufacturing the gas stove in question. Thus, in the absence of any standard laid down specifications governing the manufacturing of domestic gas stove, on the part of the OPs, the bald assertion is of no help to them. The complainant has raised many issues in his emails regarding efficiency of the product not giving him the best results upon usage and all the issues raised by the complainant in the e-mails remained un-satisfactorily answered by the OPs.
10. So much so the complainant has shown the literature regarding the First Law of Thermo Dynamics to show the process of transfer of heat from the source to the metal i.e. stainless steel, lead, copper, silver etc. and by applying the First Law of Thermo Dynamic on the product he has shown the pictures of usage of the product showing the transfer of heat from the gas stove to the Pan kept on the hob. The perusal of the photographs shows the defective transfer of heat from the burner to the metal container. Thus it is ample clear that the product sold to the complainant is not as per BIS specification and being defective is an act of unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and further not giving proper after sale service to the complainant, is an act of deficiency of service.
11. Though during the course of proceedings, the OPs have offered to replace the product with a new one, such offer has been declined by the complainant as the replaced product also would not conform to the BIS specifications. Therefore, the complainant has pressed upon refund of his amount of Rs.11,300.84 being the cost of the defective product.
12. As stated above, since the complainant has been sold defective product not conforming to the BIS specifications and not as per international standards as claimed by the OPs. Perusal of the photographs attached with the affidavit Ex.CW-1/2 shows that when burner is lit and the pan top is kept over the burner, the flame from the burner instead of going upward is coming out from the burner from left and right side. Thus, there is escape of heat from the corners of the burners and the heating of the pan or the food kept in the pan takes longer time to cook or heat up. There is no rebuttal evidence from the side of the OPs in this regard. The mere contention of the OPs that the product is of international standard without supporting any technical report disputing the working of the product as shown in the photographs and no international standard governing the product having been placed on record is of no help to the OPs. The heat energy is transported upward by convection. The heat transfer by convection occurs when a fluid such as air or water is in contact with the object whose temperature is higher than that of its surroundings. Thus, the complainant’s grievance that the heat coming out from the burner being escaped from the sideways of the burner and not coming out from the centre of the burner leads to more time in heating the vessel as well as cooking the food and wastage of LPG used for cooking. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the allegations of defective product causing loss to the complainant are duly proved by the complainant from the demonstration of usage of the LPG gas burner as shown in photographs D-1 and D-2. Thus, the act of the OPs being an act of unfair trade practice and lack of proper after sale services is an act of deficiency in service, therefore, complaint deserves to be allowed and the complainant deserves to be compensated.
13. In view of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with the following directions to the OPs to:
(a) refund to the complainant Rs.11,300.84 (Rs. Eleven thousand three hundred and paise eighty four only) with interest thereon @ 9% per annum w.e.f. 11.03.2014 till actual payment.
(b) pay to the complainant lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) towards mental and physical harassment and costs of litigation.
Compliance of this order be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Certified copies of the order be furnished to the parties forthwith free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced.
May 06, 2015.
(Mrs. Madhu P. Singh)
President
(A.B. Aggarwal)
Member
