DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 66/2021

QUORUM:    

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency in selling a Mixer Grinder which was defective.

1. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he purchased one Mixer Grinder from OP1 as manufactured by OP2 for Rs.2254/- on 03.06.2020 but Mixer Grinder stopped working on very next day and as such he reached the office of OP1 on 04.06.2020 but OP1 refused to replace the defective Mixer Grinder and he asked the OP1 to repair the same at the store. The complainant left the Mixer Grinder at the shop of OP which was repaired by Technician of OP1 but the Mixer Grinder again stopped working on 19.06.2020 which was repaired again by OP1 but it again stopped working on 16.08.2020. Thereafter the complaint was lodged at the end of OP1 to the Service Centre of OP2 for reaching the residence of the complainant and accordingly on 22.08.2020  one technician from the service centre of OP2 visited the residence of complainant and after inspecting the defective Mixer Grinder Informed that the Motor of the Mixer Grinder is dead and is likely to be replaced. It is further submitted that the OP1 neither replaced the defective Mixer Grinder nor returned the hard earned money of the complainant and OPs have refused to replace it and return the amount and therefore complainant had to purchase another Mixer Grinder for his use and thereafter he served a legal notice upon OP on 02.09.2020 which was not complied with and as such he has filed a complaint against OP seeking direction to the OP to refund Rs.2254/- with a cost of Grinder and Compensation of Rs.100000/-.
2. The OP1 was never served and ultimately vide submission of complainant dated 02.08.2022 OP1 was dropped by the complainant and OP2 was served and has filed written statement inter alia stating that as per the allegation of the complainant himself he visited the sub dealer OP1 and got the product serviced and repaired on two separate occasions soon after the purchase. Admittedly he has not approached the OP2 when his Mixer Grinder was allegedly stopped working for the first time and he got the same repaired from OP1 without any information to the OP2 and when the complaint was received for the first time to the OP2, the service technician had visited the residence of the complainant and offered to provide remedial services towards the same free of charge but the complainant refused to allow the service of the Mixer Grinder rather insisted of the replacement of the product and it is further submitted that as per warrantee, the OP2 at first instance would do the service of the product and if the product is not serviceable, then only it would be replace the product but primarily the complainant has refused to get the service by repairing the motor and the technician of the OP was carrying the job sheet in respect of his complaint on the mobile application of the OP and since the motor was found defective, the complainant was told that the same would be changed but the complainant on two occasions refused to get the service for replacement of the motor rather insisted on replacement of the whole Mixer Grinder. It is also admitted by the OP that Mixer Grinder comes with one year or two year warranty whereas motor of the same carries five years warrantee and under this warrantee OP is required to make endeavors to service the product which was duly carried out and it is reiterated that it is the complainant who has refused to carry out the replacement of the motor and was insisting of the replacement of the whole mixer grinder and therefore  there is  no deficiency on the part of the OP2 as per terms and conditions of the warrantee and the same be dismissed.
3. Complainant has filed its Rejoinder thereby denying the contents of the written statement and also has filed his own evidence by way of affidavit. OP has filed evidence of Shri Naresh Upadhyaye its AR.
4. The Complainant has filed written arguments and both parties has filed their written submissions.
5. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the record.
6. The product was purchased on 03.06.2022 and as per complainant it developed the defect on the  very next day and then after 15 days and then in August 2022. The Technician of the OP visited the residence of the complainant and admitted that Motor has been burnt /dead and requires replacement of the Motor. The contention of the complainant is that the OP was only replacing the Motor but he was asking for replacement of the whole Mixer Grinder as it is out of the order since the first day whereas contention of the OP is that under the terms and conditions of the warrantee the first endeavor of the OP is to give service w.r.t. the faulty part i.e. a motor in this case which was not allowed by the complainant and therefore complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. In support of the contention of the OP that complainant has refused for replacement of motor, the OP has not filed any job card on file but this fact is not much disputed as it is the admitted case of the parties that Motor of the Mixer Grinder was got burnt. The issue only is that complainant claims that since the Mixer Grinder has become faulty within few days of purchase it should be replaced in toto whereas contention of OP is that it would replace the damaged part only which is under warranty.
8. The Commission is of the opinion that if a mixer grinder is purchased in June 2022 and has become defective within few days or within months then apparently there is some manufacturing defect in the product. No one purchases a new article to gets harassed on the basis of terms and conditions of the OP that they had to replace the damage part once it can be visualized that if motor of the Mixer Grinder has burnt/dead within few months despite it is having a warranty for five years as admitted by OP1 then even in the absence of mechanical inspection, the manufacturing defect stands established. The OP has not filed any document on record to show that the OP has offered the complainant for replacing the motor part otherwise. On the other hand complainant has not only complained w.r.t. the defective part but even has served a legal notice upon OP which was not been complied with. It was a trivial issue where a product of only Rs.2254/- was in dispute and once the OP has admitted that Motor has burnt, the primary effort of the OP should have replaced the product so as to give satisfaction to its customers and it cannot be expected that if the product is purchased two months back then the seller would only repair the defective part. Therefore, apparently the deficiency on the part of OP stands established. The Commission therefore hereby orders as follows:

• OP is directed to pay Rs.2,254/- to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment towards the cost of the Mixer Grinder and complainant would return the defective Mixer Grinder along with the Burnt Motor to the OP.   
• The OP is also directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant including litigation charges.    

This order be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and if not complied with by OP then OP would pay an interest @ 12% p.a. on all the above amounts from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment.    

Copy of the order be supplied / sent to the parties free of cost as per rules.

File be consigned to Record Room. 

Announced on 12.07.2024.