DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.274/2021

Yateender Singh Jafa

148 SFS Apartment, Hauz Khas,

Aurobindo Marg,

New Delhi-110016

..Complainant

Versus

Glen Appliances Pvt Ltd,

I/34, DLF Industrial Area, Phase-I

Faridabad, Haryana, 121002

        ….Opposite Party

 Date of Institution    : 22.09.2021      

 Date of Order            : 06.08.2024      

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Present:   Complainant in person.

                 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Business Head for OP.

ORDER

Member: Ms. Kiran Kaushal

1.       On the strength of his complaint, complainant has prayed for direction to Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. (OP) to carry out a scientific test of the Chimney’s suction power or take it back and refund Rs.13,500/-; to pay Rs.50,000/- compensation towards mental and physical distress and financial loss.

2.       It is stated that a representative of OP on 23.10.2019 checked the dimensions of complainant’s kitchen and recommended Glen Kitchen Chimney Model GL-6064.  Complainant on his recommendation paid an advance of Rs.2,000/- in cash for the said model. The said receipt carries promise of four free services in one year in the handwriting of the representative. Balance of Rs.11,500/- was paid on installation of the said product on 24.10.2019.

3.       It is next stated that while installing the kitchen chimney OP rather than installing a new hood and a new exhaust pipe merely connected the new chimney to the complainant’s existing hood and pipe of the old chimney.  It is further stated that ever since its installation the new chimney’s suction power has been very poor.  OP had also failed to carry out the first service in the first quarter (24.10.2019 to 23.01.2020). Complaints regarding the same were made to OP vide letter dated 27.01.2020.

4.       It is stated that OP’s technician serviced the chimney grill on 08.02.2020 but the hood and the exhaust pipe was not cleaned.  The technician to prove that the suction power of the chimney was good did a ‘newspaper test’ by placing the newspaper under the chimney grill which struck to the grill. This was an unprofessional and unscientific way of measuring the suction power of the kitchen chimney.  It is stated that OP registered this product and issued a lifetime warranty only on 09.02.2020 after the complainant’s reminder.

5.       On 06.07.2020 complainant again complained about the chimney’s poor suction power and asked OP to measure it with a scientific instrument in a professional and scientific way.  Another technician visited on 08.07.2020 who cleaned only the grill and not the hood and exhaust pipe. After exchange of numerous communications between the parties OP vide letter dated 17.08.2020 stated ‘….. as per visit of the technician and the discussion held between you and us, the chimney is working fine as per its capacity.’  It was next stated that if the complainant wanted chimney model of 1400m 3/hr complainant would have to pay balance of Rs.20,000/-.

6.       Alleging deficiency of service, complainant approached this Commission for redressal of his grievance. 

7.       OP resisted the complaint stating inter alia that the complainant purchased chimney model No.GL-6064 SS 60cm1250M3BF on 24.10.2019 ,the chimney was installed and was working okay. It is stated that complainant filed a complaint on 27.01.2020 via speed post to Mega Kitchen and Home Appliances hence OP had no information about this complaint.  The receipt shared by the complainant has no bearing or mention of OP on it. 

8.       It is stated that OP received the first complaint on 06.07.2020 i.e. after nine months, for the filter cleaning of the chimney.  OP’s technician visited on 07.07.2020 and did the cleaning/service.  No charges were taken as the product was under warranty and the chimney was working fine as per the service person. It is on this date that the complainant raised the issue of suction power of not being up to the mark and wanted the company to conduct a test in his kitchen. He was explained that it was not possible to test the suction at his house however, he can bring the chimney to OP’s lab at Faridabad and same can be tested in front of him. It is stated that OP was ready to uninstall the chimney for testing and then reinstall after the test, free of cost.

9.       With regard to OP not providing the papers of Life Time Warranty it is stated that the registration of Life Time Warranty (LTW) is online and as soon as any customer registers for LTW a mail is generated and sent to customers’ Email Id and the same has been sent to the complainant. Copy of the same is enclosed. It is next stated that as per OP all issues qua the complainant has been resolved.

10.     Complainant has filed the rejoinder stating that the complainant purchased the chimney from Mega Kitchen and Appliances, who is an authorized dealer and a service centre which  issued an invoice carrying the logo of Glen Company therefore, OP was fully aware of the repeated complaints made by the complainant. It is further stated that as per annexure C-8,C-11,C-12,C-13 andC-15 complainant had consistently maintained that the suction power of the chimney was poor.  It is stated that now that more than three years have passed since the purchase of Chimney and OP’s offer to test the chimney at this stage at its laboratory is meaningless.  It is stated that the complainant has not used the chimney for all these years which remains dysfunctional in his kitchen. 

11.     Evidence and written arguments have been filed on behalf of the both the parties.  Submissions made by the parties are heard.  Material placed on record is perused.

12.     Complainant in support of his complaint has filed Tax Invoice dated 24.10.2019 wherein it is seen that the  cost of chimney in question is Rs.13,500/-. The Tax Invoice carries ‘Guarantee’ on the reverse side which is reproduced as under:-

Guarantee

Glen Appliances Pvt. Ltd. guarantees to get the product or any part thereof repaired free of charge for a period of one year from the date of purchase, should any defect develop due to faulty or defective workmanship or material.  However, the glass, plastic breakable parts, lamps, push buttons, filter locks, and items subject to normal wear and tear due to operation are not covered under guarantee.

13.     From the Guarantee provided above it is clear that the product or any part there of would be repaired free of charge for a period of one year from the date of purchase.

14.     Complainant’s reliance on the receipt provided by the representative of OP wherein the representative in his own handwriting has mentioned ‘four service free one year’, is misfounded.  As the said receipt at point No.8 of the General terms and conditions of the sale clearly mentions ‘no verbal/written commitment other than the printed condition of purchase agreement and guarantee card will be honoured ’.

15.     It is seen that on the asking of the complainant on 27.01.2020 Life Time Warranty was provided to the complainant which is appended at page 11-12 of the complaint.

16.     Life Time Warranty inter alia covers.

The chimney should have been serviced and cleaned at regular intervals at-least once in two months by a Glen Authorized Service Centre failure to comply with this will render this warranty void. The cost of any such service will be borne by the customer.

Only the parts covered under LTW will be replaced free.  The labour charges for the replacement of under warranty parts will be borne by the customer.  The visit charges (within minucipal area only) of Rs.250/- (subject to change from time to time) will be charged extra.

This chimney has been designed to last a long time and depending on the up-keep & maintenance by customer the Chimney may last a long time but for the purpose of Life Time Warranty the Life of Chimney will be taken as 7 years from the date of Purchase of the Chimney.

17.     It is next noticed that the complainant had refused to pay any visit charges or cost of any part.  Nothing has been placed on record to show that the chimney was serviced or cleaned at regular intervals. Complainant is found not to be adhering to the terms and conditions provided.

18.     Though nothing has been placed on record by OP to show that the representative of OP had offered the complainant to remove the chimney and test the suction power at their lab, it is common knowledge that such testing could not have been possible at the complainant’s house. The rudimentary way of checking the suction power was the ‘newspaper test’ which was not acceptable to the complainant. At this stage after almost four and an half years, it would not be of any relevance to ask OP to carry out a scientific test of the chimney’s suction power.

19.     In absence of any lab test report regarding the suction power this Commission is of the view that the complainant has not been able to establish any manufacturing defect in the product in question. 

19.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849 has held the following

“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint.”

20.     In light of the discussion above OP is not found to be deficient in service as OP had sent their technician for repairs whenever required by the complainant and also the fact that OP was willing to replace/upgrade the chimney after almost nine months on payment of some extra cost. The complaint case is accordingly dismissed.

Parties be provided copy of the judgment as per rules. File be consigned to the record room. Order be uploaded on the website.