BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 01^ST DAY OF JUNE 2023

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for replacement of the defective Elica Hob with a good model and to settle the difference amount considering the amount and if the OP is not ready to replace the defective Hob then he prays for refund of the entire amount which he has paid earlier and to do the needful.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant is resident of Bangaluru and native of Kodagu and work for TATA consultancy in Bangalore. He has purchased the Elica Hob and Chimney from the OP2 on 30.12.2021 and has paid Rs.49,500/- for both the products.  After purchase of the same he came to know that the price of the particular model Hob was only around Rs.24 to 25 thousand and that particular model Chimney was only around Rs.14,000/- in the month of December and the OP2 has sold the same for Rs.33,000/- for Hob and Chimney for Rs.16,500/- for higher price.

3. It is the main grievance of the complainant that the Hob product is having issues from beginning and it is defective item. The flames get very high suddenly when turning the nob. When they put the burner in sim mode the flame get turned off lot of times. The complainant are seeing the issue every now and then they are fed up with using the model as the product is very risky to use.
4. It is further grievance of the complainant that he has raised a complaint with Elica customer care and they have sent two technicians and the complainant has explained the problem and they understood the issues. But later Elica customer service managers Surendra Pillai and Anil Kumar did not want to classify the hob as faulty or defective, they did not oblige to the request of the complainant to get the product replaced with some other good model. At last they concluded the case falsely saying that the Hob is working fine.  They have further informed the complainant that they can’t do anything that the complainant needs to talk to the OP2 to get the money back.  The complainant do not want to keep the specific defective hob which is causing so much risk in their daily life.
5. It is further case of the complainant that when the OP have refused to replace the hob he has decided to raise a complaint on OP1 and 2 are selling defective hob and Chimney at a higher price. He has also further requested to take action against the Ops for fraud and cheating. Hence the complainant has filed the complaint.
6. In response to the notice, OP1 appears and OP2 remained absent.  OP1 filed version admitted about the purchase of the Elica Hob and Chimney from OP2 by paying Rs.49,500/-.
7. It is the specific contention taken by the OP1 that it is false to say that the Hob was defective from the beginning. The installation of the Hob has been done on 28.03.2022. The Hob was working fine and the complainant has registered the first complaint on 22.06.2022. If the product is defective then it does not work for three months. From one visit they cannot determine that the product is defective unless the issue repeats three times in one month.
8. OP further stated that they have send technicians and the product was inspected by the technicians and they have reported that the product is working fine.  The complainant is nursing an imaginary grievance that he had been over charged by OP2 when he brought the product.  Based on such grievance the complainant is claiming a replacement though such replacement or refund of such price is strictly unwarranted and unjustified in the facts and circumstances of this case.
9. The OP1 has also offered that they are still ready and willing to rectify the minor issues complained of with the Hob such as the flame gets very high suddenly or that on simmer the flame gets turned off suddenly by carrying out repair work of the same as may be required.
10. It is further case of the OP that the complainant is seeking an alternative relief for refund or replacement of the product with an Elica product that he would choose and offer to pay the differential amount i.e., the price of the product, model of Hob of his choice, less the price he has originally prayed for purchase of the hob i.e., Rs.33,000/- on 30.12.2021 under invoice number 1086.
11. It is the specific case of the OP that there neither was nor is any defect of whatsoever nature in the product Hob manufactured by this OP1. The OP1 made an offer that as and byway of adopting customer centric view they made an offer to agree to sell a new hob product of complainant choice provided the complainant makes payment of differential amount of price if this Commission deems it fair and reasonable in the interest of justice.  The OP has prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
12. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and relies on 07 documents.  Affidavit evidence of OP has been filed and no documents marked.
13. Heard the arguments of both the parties. Both the parties have filed their written arguments.
14. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

15. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1, 2 and 3: As per final orders

REASONS

16. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken up for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, written arguments and documents filed by the complainant. Inspite of issue of notice to OP2, remained absent.
17. It is clear from the allegations made from the complaint and documents and admission of OP1 that the complainant has purchased Elica Hob and Chimney from OP2 for a price of Rs.49,500/- on 30.12.2021 under invoice No.1086. In support of his contention he has produced the document No.1 the invoice copy.
18. It is the main grievance of the complainant that even though the particular model hob was only around Rs.24 to 25 thousand and Chimney was only around Rs.14000/- in the month of December 2021, the OP2 has sold the same in favour of the complainant for Rs.33,000/- for the hob and Chimney for Rs.16,500/- and he has collected higher price from the complainant.
19. In addition to this the grievance of the complainant is that the hob is having issues from the very beginning and the defective item. The flames get very high suddenly when turning the nob and when they put the burner in slim mode the flame gets turned off lot of times and they are seeing this issue every time. Hence he fed up with using this model as the product is very risky. Hence he has raised complaint with the OP1.
20. It is also undisputed fact the OP1 has send two technicians and they have inspected the hob and later they have submitted the report that there is no defect in the hob.  The request of this complainant for replace with some other good model was rejected by OP1 service manager namely Surendra.
21. In support of his contention the complainant has also produced document No.2 warranty card hob and document No.3 warranty card Chimney and document No.4 the mail communications sent to OP1 company and document No.5 is the grievance registration at consumer helpline. The complainant has also produced one CD for showing the defect at document No.6.
22. The OP has specifically denied that hob is a defective product. It is also the contention taken by the OP1 that there is no such serious defect in the product.  The complainant has failed to prove that hob is a defective one. The technician send from their company after inspection have given the report that there is no defect in the hob and hence their service manager has refused to replace the product. It is also the specific case of the OP that they have sufficiently proved that there is no manufacturing defect in the hob and they have also provided the services without any failure or delay.  
23. It is pertinent to note here that the OP has made an offer in the very version filed by them that they are even today ready and willing to rectify the minor issues complained off with the hob that the flame gets very high suddenly or that on simmer the flame gets turned off suddenly by carrying out repair work if the same is required. In addition to this they have further offered in para 14 of their version that they are still ready and willing to make an offer to agreed to sell the new hob product of the complainant choice provided the complainant makes payment of differential amount of price.
24. On perusal of the prayer of the complainant it is clear that the complainant has also sought for the relief that he is ready to replace the defective hob product with other new good model which he will choose from OP1 and to settle the difference amount considering the amount which he has paid earlier.  
25. It is clear from the offers made by the OP and also the relief sought by the complainant, the complainant is ready to replace the defective hob product with other good new model which he will choose from OP1 and to settle the difference amount by considering the amount which he has paid earlier. When the both the complainant and OP have agree for replacement with a condition that the complainant has to pay the difference amount. The same may be accepted and the complaint may be disposed off by passing the same order. Hence we answer point No.1 and point No.2 accordingly.
26. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part with a direction to the OP to replace the defective hob product with other good new model which the complainant will choose from the OP1.
2. It is further directed to the complainant to make the payment of the differential amount of price of the new product.
3. The complainant is also entitle for litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-.
4. The OP shall comply this order within 60 days from this date, failing which the complainant is order to take steps for execution of the order.
5. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 01^ST day of JUNE, 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL