Sri Ranjan Ray, Ld. Member FINAL ORDER/ JUDGEMENT This complaint U/S 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 was initially filed against the Opposite Party (O.P.)- 1. HAWKINS COOKERS LIMITED, Udyog Mandir II, 7-C, Pitamber Lane, Mahim, Mumbai- 400016, 2. M/S NADIA STORES, C-3/R, Bidhan Market, Siliguri - 734001, West Bengal who contested the case by filing Written Version (W.V.). The case of the complainant as per her complaint is as follows- The complainant argued in his plaint that on 04/08/2015 she purchased on Futura Non- stick Kadai (cookware), manufactured by Hawkins Cookers Limited, the O.P. No.1 herein, from M/S. Nadia Stores, the O.P. No.2 herein, against “2 Years Guarantee” vide Guarantee Card No. Q55D45L002212 and consequently she noticed that in spite of taking precautions as stated under the “Caution” clause provided in the said guarantee card, the non- stick coating of the cookware started to peel off which was a “defect” as defined u/s 2(1) (f) of the Act and as the said defect occurred in the guarantee period, the complainant on 18/10/2016 went to the O.P. No.2 for repairing her said product and the O.P. No.2 assured regarding the repairing and also issued a receipt for the same. The complainant also argued that on 12/12/2016 the O.P. No.2 intimated her over phone for collecting her repaired non-stick cookware but when the complainant went to collect it the O.P. No. 2 demanded Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) only from her as a repairing charge for her same and when the complainant asked a proper receipt against the repairing charge as the said product was under the coverage of guarantee period the O.P. No.2 refused to issue any receipt and without any proper valid receipt the complainant also refused to pay any money to the O.P. No.2 and for this reason the O.P. No.2 did not handover the said non-stick cookware to the complainant. The complainant also argued in her plaint that without getting any phone call from the O.P. No.2 on 19/04/2017 the complainant sent a legal notice to the O.P.s to repair or replace the defective product without any cost or to refund the existing market value of the said product within 30 days from the date of receipt of her notice and both the O.P.s sent reply separately to the complainant on 08/05/2017 and 23/05/2017 respectively where they accepted the fact mentioned by the complainant but astonishingly both the reply contradicted each other. The complainant also added in her plaint that the “Service Centre Inspection Report” which was annexed by the O.P. No.1 with its reply dated 23/05/2017 clearly showed that the non-stick cookware was not repaired and it was not available for delivery but on 12/12/2016 the O.P. No.2 called the complainant to collect the same but again she was asked for money by O.P. No.2 without any receipt and again on 15/04/2019 when the complainant was refused by O.P. No.2 then finding no other alternative she filed this complaint for redressing her legitimate grievance. The prayers of complainant are as follows : - To pass an order directing the O.P.s and to repair or replace the defective product without any cost whatsoever or to refund the existing market value of the said product to the complainant.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s and to pay, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the complainant on account of compensation for selling defective product, being deficient in providing repairing service and also restoring to unfair trade practice.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s and to pay, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) only to the complainant for mental agony and harassment as well as for defaming the complainant and causing her personal and professional loss.
- To pass an order directing the O.P.s and to pay, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only being legal expenses and the cost of the proceeding.
- Any other relief/ reliefs to which the complainant may be found legally entitled to.
List of Documents filed by the complainant: Sl. No. – 01 (Annexure I): Copy of Guarantee Card No. Q55D45L002212, dated 04/082015. Sl. No. – 02 (Annexure II): Copy of the receipt, dated 18/10/2016 issued by the O.P. No.2. Sl. No. – 03 (Annexure III): Copy of the Legal Notice, dated 19/04/2017 issued on behalf of the complainant to the O.P.s together with Postal Receipt and Acknowledgement Card (collectively). Sl. No. – 04 (Annexure IV): Copy of the reply, dated 08/05/2017 issued by the O.P. No.2. Sl. No. – 05 (Annexure V): Copies of the reply, dated 23/05/2017 together with the Service Centre Inspection Report issued by the O.P. No.1. On behalf of the Opposite Party (O.P.)- 1. HAWKINS COOKERS LIMITED, Udyog Mandir II, 7-C, Pitamber Lane, Mahim, Mumbai- 400016, 2. M/S NADIA STORES, C-3/R, Bidhan Market, Siliguri - 734001, West Bengal who contested the case by filing W.V. and as per their W.V.s the case is as follows. The O.P.s in their Written Versions denied all allegations made by the complainant and also argued that, it was true that on 18/10/2016 the complainant visited the shop of O.P. No.2 and there was no manufacturing defect in the said cookware and it was damaged due to inappropriate use by the complainant and it was informed to the complainant that the O.P. No.1 would take appropriate measure to re-coat the said cookware but the complainant have to pay a minimum cost of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) only for the same and the complainant was ready to bear the said cost. The O.P.s also added in their W.V.s that the charges of inspection and transportation of the said product for this purpose was borne by the Company. The O.P.s also argued in their W.V. that they received one legal notice from the complainant and in its reply the O.P. No1 clearly mentioned that the present O.P. offered the service of recoating with a nominal charge of Rs. 100/- (Rupees One Hundred) only. The O.P. No.1 also added in his W.V. that he enquired the matter through its authorized Service Centre, situated at Mahim and as per the inspection report it had been found that the damage of the said cookware occurred due to use of the said product on high heat and baked on stains and in the said inspection report it was clearly mentioned that the complainant had to use the said product on medium to low heat flame and also had to clean it by using nylon scrubber and wash it after use. List of documents filed by the O.P. No.1 are as follows : 1) Photocopy of the reply of Legal Notice, dated 23/05/2017. 2) Photocopy of Postal Receipt. 3) Photocopy of Acknowledgement, dated 23/05/2017. 4) Photocopy of Service Centre Inspection Report, dated 16/12/2016. Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version and documents filed by the parties the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission. Points for consideration 1) Whether the complainant is a consumer? 2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019? 3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case? 4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant? 5) Is the complainant is entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent? Decision with reason:- All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision. Seen and perused the complaint petition and Written Version filed by the parties which are supported by the affidavit, documents filed by the parties. We are also heard arguments of both the parties in full length. The complainant resides in the jurisdiction of Siliguri and the O.P. No.2 is also carrying his business in C-3/R, Bidhan Market, Siliguri - 734001, West Bengal. Thus, the Commission has no doubt that the complainant is a very much consumer as per the Consume Protection Act, 1986 and Consumer Protection Act- 2019 and also there is no doubt that this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case. At the time of argument Ld. Advocate of the Complainant submits that the Complainant has been able to prove its case against the O.P not only through her Written Deposition but also by producing documents. In this case the O.P.s are failed to defend that they had no deficiency of service. The O.P.s are not able to give sufficient evidence to establish their defense and are not filed any expert opinion regarding this case. The O.P.s were neither produced any witness nor produced any expert’s comments that the coating of the said Non- stick Kadai (cookware)was damaged due to inappropriate use by the complainant. The O.P.s filed Photocopy of Service Centre Inspection Report, dated 16/12/2016 but the O.P.s did not produce the witness in support of this document, i.e., who inspected the said product, what was the qualification of the person who inspected the said product etc. For this reason, the complainant was not able to cross examine the witness. On the other hand, in this consumer case, the consumer several times tried to solve this issue but the negligent manner of the O.P.s was very much established because of that the issue was not solved. It is fact that the said Non- stick Kadai (cookware) was under the cover of guarantee period. So, it is the duty of the O.P.s to give their best service to his consumer and this Commission has no doubt to hold that the O.P.s did not provide their best service to his consumer. A consumer always buys a product from a reputed company like Hawkins Cookers Limited with an expectation for a good quality of service but in this case the company failed to serve at his best to his consumer. So, as per the above discussion it is very much clear that there was a deficiency of service from the part of O.P.s and this Commission has no doubt that there was a deficiency of services from the part of the O.P.s In this instance case, the O.P.s are jointly and severally liable. The O.P.s are directed to either repair or replace the said Non- stick Kadai (cookware) or refund the purchase amount of the said Non- stick Kadai (cookware) with a simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of purchase of the said Non- stick Kadai (cookware) by an Account Payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of this order. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and litigation cost and the O.P.s are also directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. That the Consumer Case No. 27/2019 be and same is allowed in contest against the Opposite Party (O.P.)- 1. HAWKINS COOKERS LIMITED, and O.P. No.2. M/S NADIA STORES. Hence, it is, ORDERED That the Consumer Case No. 27/2019 be and tame is allowed in contest against the Opposite Party (O.P.)- 1. HAWKINS COOKERS LIMITED, and O.P. No.2. M/S NADIA STORES. In this instance case, the O.P.s are jointly and severally liable in this case. The O.P.s are directed to either repair or replace the said Non- stick Kadai (cookware) or refund the purchase amount of the said Non- stick Kadai (cookware) with a simple interest of 6% per annum from the date of purchase of the said Non- stick Kadai (cookware) by an Account Payee cheque in favour of the complainant within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of this order. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only for mental pain and agony and litigation cost and the O.P.s are also directed to deposit Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) only to Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission. Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost. | 
