STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                     UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

1.    Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd., # 1-34, DLF, Industrial Area, Phase I, Faridabad (Haryana) through Shri Abhishek Kumar its Area Manager.

2.    Sai Sales Corporation, SCO No.68-70, Basement, Sector 17, Chandigarh through  Sh.Mahesh Atri its. Prop.

                                                       .…Appellants

                           Versus

Col.A.S.Vaid resident of House No.1335, Sector 33-C, Chandigarh.

                                                       …. Respondent 

BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT

              MRS. NEENA SANDHU,    MEMBER

              SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER

Present:    Sh.R.B.Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

                Respondent in person.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                   This is an appeal filed by the appellants/OPs No.1 and 3 against the order, dated 10.05.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) in complaint case No. 84 of 2011  vide which, it allowed the complaint and directed the OPs as under:-

“In view of the above discussion we are of the considered opinion, that there is merit in the complaint and the same is accordingly allowed. The OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.5400/- i.e. the price of the LPG Stove with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint.  They are also liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for physical harassment as well as mental agony faced by the complainant and also Rs.5500/- towards costs of litigation. The order shall be complied with by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the OPs would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount alongwith penal interest @18%, till the payment is actually made to the complainant”.

2.           The facts, in brief are that the Complainant purchased Glen LPG Stove 1045, SS  HF A1, four burners with auto ignition from RCPM International, Jalandhar on 13.7.2010 for Rs.5400/- having one year guarantee and additional guarantee of five years for burners.  It was stated that the burners became defective within 6 months of its purchase, and complaint thereof, was lodged with Sai Sales Corporation, Authorized Service Centre of  OPs (OP No.3 in the complaint) on 13.1.2011. It was further stated that Sh.Raj Kumar from Sai Sales Corporation did his best to rectify the defect by replacing the burner and mixture tube but could not rectify the same. Thereafter, he  showed his inability to remove the defect and told that he would send someone else from Glen Manufactures.  It was further stated that the defect was of a serious nature as when the high flame burner was lit and turned to “sim” and then brought back to high flame, the flame would extinguish, but the unburnt gas would continue to circulate within the mixture tube till it was ‘switched off’. When again switched on, the burner would not lit, but the unburnt gas from the cylinder continued to circulate within the burner and if by any chance, this gas was sucked into the gas cylinder, it could explode, and cause damage not only to the property, but also to the human life.  It was further stated that even after lapse of one week time no one turned up from Sai Sales Corporation (OP No.3) to attend the complaint and, on enquiry, the complainant was informed that the concerned person was away and would be sent immediately on his arrival. It was further stated that on 19.1.2011 the complainant again contacted Sai Sales Corporation. and talked to Mr. Abhishek, Area Sales Manager, and narrated him the whole problem who assured that he would come after talking to the Sai Sales Corporation, but he did not turn up. It was further stated that the complainant talked to Mr. Abhishek on 21.1.2011, 28.1.2011, 31.1.2011 and 2.2.2011, but every time, it was told that after getting spare parts from the factory, the defect would be rectified. Mr.Abhishekh showed his helplessness and advised him (complainant) to contact Mr. Arun Malhotra, Service Manager (All over India). It was further stated that, on 5.2.2011, Mr. Raj Kumar of Sai Corporation came with another mixture tube for replacement and, on the advice of Mr. Arun Malhotra, he opened the fuel pipe and then replaced it and lowered the level of the burner, but the auto ignition did not function. It was further stated that even after lapse of 33 days, the defect could not be removed, which caused a lot of harassment to the complainant, and his family members. It was further stated that the complainant requested the OPs to change the stove, but to no effect. It was further stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, as also, indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

3.           In their written reply, the appellants/OPs admitted the fact with regard to the purchase of the Glen LPG Stove, in question, for Rs.13.07.2010 for Rs.5400/- having one year guarantee and additional guarantee of five years for burners.  However, it was stated that a dent was found on the gas pipe line, which could not happen without external force. On enquiry from the complainant, it came to light that the same might have got dented during transit, from Jalandhar, to Chandigarh.  It was further stated that, as a goodwill gesture, the OPs requested the complainant to hand over the Stove to their technician, for replacement of complete gas pipe line, with all the connecting gas pipes, without any charges but he refused to do so. It was further stated that, the OPs were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice.

4.           The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

5.           After hearing the complainant, in person, the Counsel for the OPs, and, on going through the evidence and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 

6.           Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/OPs No.1 and 3.

7.           We have heard the Counsel for the appellants, the respondent, in person, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                     The Counsel for the appellants submitted that the District Forum while allowing the complaint failed to appreciate that one out of the two defects had already been rectified by the OPs on the next day of the lodging of the complaint. It was further submitted that though, it was not permissible under terms of guarantee, however,  as a goodwill gesture, the defective parts were duly replaced, free of costs. It was further submitted that the General Manager of appellant No.1 requested the respondent/complainant, to handover the LPG, to the technician in order to replace the gas pipe, which got dented due to mishandling, but he refused to handover the same and insisted for the refund of money, after using the Gas Stove for six months. It was further submitted that the District Forum wrongly ordered the refund of the LPG Stove. It was further submitted that the District Forum erred by not adopting/adhering to the procedure laid down under Section 13-C of the Consumer Protection Act.

9.           The respondent/complainant submitted that on 13.7.2010, he purchased Glen LPG stove with four burners, with auto ignition for Rs.5400/-, but the burners of the said LPG stove became defective within 6 months of its purchase. It was further submitted that the complaint was duly lodged on 13.1.2011 with M/s Sai Sales Corporation (the authorized service centre of the appellants). The technician of the appellants, in order to, rectify the defect replaced the burner and  mixture tube. Inspite of replacing these parts, he could not rectify defect and rather showed his inability, to remove the defect, as it was beyond his comprehension and told the respondent/complainant that he would send some expert from M/s Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. i.e. the manufacturer to rectify the same. It was further submitted that the defect in the LPG stove was of serious nature as after liting up the burner on full flame, if it was turned to sim, and again if brought back to high flame then the flame would extinguish but the un-burnt gas would continue to circulate within the mixture tube till it was switched off, but if the gas was again turned on then the burner would not lit up but the un-burnt gas from the cylinder would continue to circulate within the burner and if by any chance, this gas was sucked into the gas cylinder, the same could explode, causing damage not only to property but also to the human life. It was further submitted that despite repeated complaints, no body turned up to rectify the defect even after 33 days. It was further submitted that due to this act and conduct of the appellants, the  respondent-complainant suffered a lot of mental agony and physical harassment.

10.          There is, no doubt about the factum that, in order to, remove the defects in the LPG gas stove, the technician of the appellants  replaced the burner and  mixture tube. Even after replacing the same, the technician failed to rectify the said defects, but rather he showed his inability to rectify the same and told the complainant that  he will send some expert from M/s Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. to rectify the same.  But even after the lapse of 33 days, nobody turned up to rectify the defects and the complaint of the respondent/complainant was left unattended, which caused him a lot of inconvenience/ harassment. There was, thus, inherent defect in the Gas Stove. Keeping these facts into consideration, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent was certainly entitled to the refund of the price of the LPG Gas Stove along with compensation for mental agony and physical harassment.  Moreover, in the absence of any evidence, we do not find any substance in the submissions of the Counsel for the appellants that the G.M. of the appellants requested the respondent to hand over the LPG Gas Stove to the technician, in order to rectify the defect but he refused to hand over the same and insisted for the refund of the price of LPG Gas Stove even after using it for six months. Further, we do not find any merit, in the contention raised by the appellants that the District Forum erred by not adopting/adhering to the procedure laid down under Section 13-C of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, because the defect in the LPG Gas Stove was patent and the technician of the appellants showed his inability to rectify the same. Thereafter no expert of the appellants turned up to rectify the defects, as assured by the said technician. As the defect in the LPG Gas Stove was inherent taking into consideration, the irresponsible act and conduct of the appellants/OPs, the District Forum rightly deemed it proper not to send the Gas Stove to any appropriate laboratory for getting any expert opinion.

11.          Keeping these facts into mind, we are of the considered view that the District Forum rightly allowed the complaint and directed the appellants to refund the amount of Rs.5400/- i.e. the price of the LPG Gas Stove with interest @ 9% from the date of filing the complaint. However, the compensation awarded, on account of physical harassment, as well as mental agony, seems to be excessive particularly when 9% interest p.a. was granted on the price of the LPG Gas Stove. The compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded on account of mental agony and physical harassment being much higher than the price of the LPG Gas Stove, it will be just and appropriate if the same is reduced to Rs.5,000/-.  In Surendra Kumar Tyagi Vs. Jyoti Nursing and Hospital and Another, IV(2010) CPJ-199 (NC), in which it was held that the compensation should be commensurate with the loss and injury, suffered by the respondent/complainant. The compensation is required to be fair and just and not unreasonable and arbitrary. The Consumer Foras are not meant to enrich the consumers, at the cost of the service providers, by awarding unfair, unreasonable and highly excessive compensation. Further, the District Forum erred by not directing the respondent/complainant, to return the LPG Stove, on receipt of the entire amount to the appellants/OPs. Not only this, the penal interest @ 18% p.a. awarded by the District Forum also seems to be on the higher side. The penal interest is liable to be reduced. It will be just and appropriate if the same is reduced  from 18% p.a. to 12 % p.a.

12.          No other point, was urged, by the parties.

13.          For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is partly accepted with no order as to costs,  and the impugned order is modified, in the following manner:-

i)  The OPs/appellants are directed to refund the amount of Rs.5400/- i.e. the price of the LPG Gas Stove with interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant/respondent  from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 14.02.2011 till its realization.

ii)    The OPs/appellants are directed to pay Rs.5,000/-, instead of Rs.10,000/- as awarded by the District Forum to the respondent/ complainant, as compensation on account of physical harassment as well as mental agony,  caused to him.

ii)    The respondent/complainant is also directed to hand over the LPG Gas Stove, in question, along with accessories of the same, to the appellants/OPs, on receipt of the entire amount.

              The aforesaid order be complied with by the appellants/OPs within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which interest @  12% p.a. shall be paid thereon from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 14.02.2011 till its realization besides costs of Rs.5500/- awarded by the District Forum.

14.          Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

15.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after compliance.

Pronounced.                                                    Sd/-

November 17,  2011                 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER]

                                                                    PRESIDENT       

cmg

sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

                                                                             MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

                                                                             MEMBER