Date of Filing : 13.07.2022
Date of Disposal: 09.05.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L., .....MEMBER –I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,.MCom., ICWA(Inter)., B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.162/2022
THIS TUESDAY, THE 09th DAY OF MAY 2023
Mr.A.C.Benjamain,
No.3/412, Mugalivakkam Main Road,
Madhanathapuram,
Porur, Chennai 600 125. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Proprietor,
Chandra Stores (Vessels Merchant),
No.9/1, 2,3, Trunk Road, Porur,
Chennai 600 116.
2.The Managing Director,
V-GUARD, G-Guard Industries Limited,
No.42/962, Vennala High School Road,
Vennala, Kochi,
Kerala 682 028. ...Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.
Counsel for the 2nd opposite party : M/s.S.Muthukumaravel, Advocate.
Counsel for the 1st opposite party : Exparte.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 27.04.2023 in the present of Mr.A.R.Poovannan counsel for the complainant and M/s.S.Muthukumaravel counsel for the 2ndopposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in selling a defective product along with direction to supply brand new good quality Glass top Gas Stove or return back a sum of Rs.7,556/- the cost of the stove, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damage to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he purchased a brand new glass Top GAS stove of V-Guard Company from the 1st opposite party for a sum of Rs.7,556/-. The 1st opposite party was the authorized dealer of the V-Guard stoves and the 2nd opposite party was the manufacturer of the same. The complainant after purchase started using it for his residential use. Since from the first day of installation there was some gas smell and the same continued while using the big burner every time it was lighted. The complainant on the next week noticed flames on the gas tubes below the stove. It was submitted that the gas cylinder was connected with the burner of the gas stove and he saw the flames over the connecting tube and complainant was shocked to see the same and immediately contacted the 1st opposite party and informed of the same. On 01.10.2021 the service person attached with 1st opposite party attended the fault but the problem continued. When the same was reported to the 1st opposite party it was told that it may be an issue with the cylinder and therefore on 30.10.2021 the cylinder and the regulator were checked by the gas supplier and they changed the washer of the cylinder. Even then it was of no use and it was told by the 1st opposite party to bring back the stove and therefore the complainant on 31.10.2021 handed over the same to the 1st opposite party and it was told that the 1st opposite party would send the same to the 2nd opposite party’s company for repairs. The gas stove was then returned after three days to the complainant on the score that it was fully repaired. Inspite of all the repairs attended by the 1st opposite party and the Gas cylinder Supplier, the flames were not arrested and the gas smell continued whenever the big burner in the stove was lighted. It was a manufacturing defect which could not be rectified at the opposite party’s end. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to supply a brand new good quality Glass top Gas Stove or return back a sum of Rs.7,556/- the cost of the stove, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damage to the complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 2nd opposite party:-
The 2nd opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complainant has never given any complaint directly to the 2nd opposite party. On 10.12.2022 the 1st opposite party informed to them that their customer Mr.Benjamin was having some issues with his Gas Stove and based on the verbal complaint from the 1st opposite party, the 2nd opposite party‘s technician had visited the customer premises on 11.12.2022 and found the stove perfectly working fine and at the same time if there was any such defect as alleged in the complaint, the complainant would have permitted our representative to inspect the product and to rectify the defect as alleged in the complaint. The 2nd opposite party had even requested the complainant to replace or refund the product but the complainant was adamant that could take the refund only with Rs.1,00,000/-. The 1st opposite party was based at Chennai and 2nd opposite party was based at Kochi Kerala. The complainant could not choose his jurisdiction on the basis of his own convenience. Therefore this Commission has no jurisdiction. It was submitted that with the ulterior motive of extortion, the complainant had made the Managing Director of the 2nd opposite party as a party but had not made the manufacturer brand V-Guard Industries Limited as a party to the complaint. It was denied the contentions that the Gas Stove was sent to the 2nd opposite party for repair and the stove was returned after 3 days on the score that it was fully repaired. For the reasons best known to the complainant, the complainant had not permitted the service technician of the 2nd opposite party to inspect the product and therefore there is no deficiency of service on their part and thus sought for the complaint to be dismissed.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 on their side. on the side of 2nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 on their side. The 1st oppostie party was set exparte on 10.11.2022 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per the statute.
Points for consideration:-
Whether the product sold to the complainant suffers with manufacturing defect?
If so whether the act of opposite parties in not rectifying or in not repairing the product amounts to deficiency in service?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1&2:-
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Complainant’s gas connection book was marked as Ex.A1;
Purchase bill of Glass Top Gas Stove of V-Guard company dated 03.10.2021 was marked as Ex.A2;
Guarantee card book was marked as Ex.A3;
Receipt of changing the regulator dated 13.01.2022 was marked as Ex.A4;
Invoice for the gas cylinder dated 01.03.2022 was marked as Ex.A5;
Service card was marked as Ex.A6;
Purchase bill of new gas stove dated 13.04.2022 was marked as Ex.A7;
Legal notice issued by the complainant was marked as Ex.A8;
Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery were marked as Ex.A9 & Ex.A10;
On the side of opposite party the following documents were submitted in proof of thier defence;
What app message was marked as Ex.B1;
Recorded videos of the burning gas stove at complainant’s home was marked as Ex.B2;
Photo copies of the burning gas stove taken at complainant’s home was marked as Ex.B3
Warranty card was marked as Ex.B4;
The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that there was gas leakage from the gas stove purchased from the 1st opposite party and manufactured by the 2nd opposite party. Even from the first day of installation gas smell emanates and the next week flames on the gas tube below the stove was noticed. On reporting the same to the 1st opposite party the fault was attended. However, the problem continued. The cylinder and regulator was checked but there was no problem in the same. The 1st opposite party requested the complainant to bring the stove for repair which was returned after three days. As the complainant was away from home for three months they have not used it and on the return when they lighted the stove found the same defect. Again the stove was surrendered to the 1st opposite party. The cylinder and regulator was also changed on 13.01.2022. Inspite of all the repairs the flames could not be arrested and the gas smells continuous whenever the big burner in the stove is lighted. Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed either for replcement of Gas stove or refund of money.
On the other hand, the 2nd opposite party stated that the burden of proof of manufacturing defect lies with the complainant and the complainant after satisfying that the defect has been rectified left for Pondicherry. Further the new purchase of the gas stove was not denied. As no technical person was appointed by this commission to ascertain any defect in the product it was argued that the claim of complainant could not be accepted.
We perused the entire materials and pleadings produced by both parties.
With regard to jurisdictional issue, the complainant’s residence comes very well within this jurisdiction and hence the complaint was maintainable.
The 2nd opposite party who is the manufacturer had alleged that no technician was appointed to give expert opinion on the fault. It is evident from the pleadings that the gas stove was giving leakage problem from the very first day of inception leading to flames coming from the connecting tube. Further it is seen that the product was given three years warranty on product and five years on glass and burner from the date of purchase. The gas stove was purchased on 03.10.2021 and due to the gas leakage, suspecting defect in regulator the regulator was changed as evident from Ex.A4. Further it is seen that a new gas stove was purchased on 13.04.2022. If at all the gas stove was made good after the repairs as contended by the 2nd opposite party no necessity arises for the complainant to purchase a new gas stove in his name. The arguments advanced by the 2nd opposite party that it may be purchased for giving as gift seems meaningless as it is proved that the earlier stove purchased suffers with inherent manufacturing defect and hence it could not be used. Further for the legal notice sent by the complainant no denial/rebuttal notice was sent by the opposite parties. It is even admitted by the 2nd opposite party that they are ready for replacement or refund of money in their written version. No proof that complainant sought Rs.1,00,000/- additional money with them. In such facts and circumstances this commission is of the view that the defect of the gas stove was proved to the satisfaction of the commission and requires no inspection or expert opinion to prove the defect. Thus the request for the replacement of the gas stove by the complainant is justified in the facts and circumstance. When the same was not carried by the opposite parties being service providers, the act of opposite parties amounts to clear deficiency in service. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the complainant and as against the opposite party.
Point No.3:-
A defect in the gas stove used in everyday life could not be ignored as an immaterial thing as it may cause danger to the human life. Hence as we have held above that the ops had committed deficiency in service in supplying a defective stove and also failed to replace the same, we direct them to supply a brand new good quality Glass Top Gas Stove or in alternative to refund the cost of Rs.7556/-.Further for the mental agony caused to the complainant we award Rs.25,000/-as compensation and we award Rs.5,000/- as cost.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against both opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them
a) To supply a brand new good quality Glass top Gas Stove or in alternative to refund the cost of Rs.7,556/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred fifty six only) within six week from the date of receipt of copy of this order;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.
c) To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
d) Amount in clause (a) if not paid within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, interest at the rate of 6% will be levied on the said amount from the date of complaint till realization.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 09th day of May 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 .............. Complainant’s gas connection book. Xerox
Ex.A2 03.10.2021 Purchse bill of glass top gas stove of V Guard Company. Xerox
Ex.A3 .............. Guarantee gard book. Xerox
Ex.A4 13.01.2022 Receipt for the changing the regulator. Xerox
Ex.A5 01.03.2022 Invoice for the gas cylinder. Xerox
Ex.A6 ................ Service card. Xerox
Ex.A7 13.04.2022 Purchase bill of new gas stove. Xerox
Ex.A8 21.04.2022 Legal notice sent by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A9 ................ Acknowledgement card. Xerox
Ex.A10 .............. Acknowledgement card. Xerox
List of documents filed by the 2nd opposite party:-
Ex.B1 ………….. What app message. Xerox
Ex.B2 ………….. Recorded videos of the burning gas stove at complainant’s home. Xerox
Ex.B3 …………. Photo copies of the burning gas stove taken at complainant’s home. Xerox
Ex.B4 …………… Warranty card. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
