Haryana

Ambala

CC/351/2015

Piush Kant - Complainant(s)

Versus

Hawkins Cookers Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Suksham Aggarwal

21 Nov 2017

ORDER

   

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 351 of 2015

Date of Institution: 15.12.2015

Date of Decision: 21.11.2017

 

Warrant Officer Piush Kant, Air Force Kalpi po- Saha, Ambala Cantt (Haryana)- 133104. Mob No. - 08221810495.

                                                                                         ...................Complainant

VERSUS

1. Hawkins Cookers Limited C-21 (Twenty One), U Road, Waghle Industrial Estate Thane (Maharashtra) – 400604. Consumer Service Department. Ph. – 022-24440807.
2. Air Force Canteen Kalpi, Ambala Cantt Pin Code- 133104.

                                                                                ...................Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    SHRI D. N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

        SHRI PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

        MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER

 

Present:    Ms. Suksham Aggarwal, Adv. for Complainant.

                    Sh. Naginder Singh Vashisht, Adv. for OP No.1.

                   None for OP No.2.                  

 

ORDER

1.      Sh. Piush Kant, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Hawkins Cookers Ltd. and another/Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the “OPs”). Brief facts of the case are that the complainant purchased one 03 (Three) Ltrs Futura pressure cooker F-40 F-52 T-543617 index No.014060D from OP No.2 vide bill invoice No.015377 dated 01.11.2015 (Annexure C-1) for a consideration of Rs.2038/- including taxes. OP No.1 is the manufacturer of the aforesaid pressure cooker. The complainant asserts that the packaging box of the aforesaid pressure cooker beautifully displays the figure of very healthy vegetable and cereals and further depicts that this cooker is suitable for use on gas, electricity, halogen, ceramic cook tops, kerosene, coal and wood. It is averred by the complainant that keeping in view the fact that his mother-in-law was 78 years old, illiterate and does not know how to operate gas-stove though she knows how to operate induction chulha, he purchased the aforesaid pressure cooker and gifted the same to her. The complainant further avers that two days thereafter, his mother-in-law rang him up and abashed him very badly and that she threw the aforesaid pressure cooker by explaining the following defects therein, (a) it doesn’t work on induction chulha (hereinafter referred to as Issue No.1); (b) it doesn’t blow whistle (hereinafter referred to as Issue No.2); (c) operating instruction and tested recipes are not provided in bilingual language [Annexure C-5] (hereinafter referred to as Issue No.3). The complainant asserts that following this incident, his mother-in-law was very upset with him and that his wife felt that he had done this misdeed knowingly which had created biggest ditch between him and his wife. The complainant further states that his wife, after listening to the entire episode from her mother,  immediately decided to go to her and soothe her old aged frightened mother. The complainant further explicate his agony by stating that he being diabetic and primarily hypertension person [Annexure C-4] who have to follow restricted diet as instructed by Medical Officer which was not possible in the absence of his wife. The complainant states that he talked with Mr. Kawaljeet Singh, incharge of Haryana region for aforesaid products, on 03.11.2015/04.11.2015 but that instead of listening to his problem, he started explaining the salient features of Futura cooker. Not satisfied with his reply, the complainant allegedly contacted customer care service multiple times but found their reply not upto the mark. The complainant states that the reply of one customer care executive that so far complainant was alone to raise such type of complaint against the company and the step taken by his mother-in-law and his wife has filled his mind with the highest mental agony and has abashed his life. Hence, this present complaint before this Forum.
2.                In its reply, OP No.1 has categorically denied the averments raised in the complaint. OP No.1 states that on the lid of every pressure cooker it is mentioned “IMPORTANT: READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE USE” [Annexure R-1/2] to ensure that the consumers familiarize themselves with the operation thereof. A copy of the instruction manual is attached as Annexure R-1/1. In response to Issue No.1, the OP No.1 asserts that the aforesaid product purchased by the complainant is an Electric cooktop Compatible, as mentioned on the packaging collaterals of the product, and not an Induction Compatible Pressure Cooker. Moreover, the Instruction Manual (on page no.13 of Annexure R-1/1) itself categorically speaks that the product is “Suitable for Gas, Electricity, Halogen, Ceramic Cooktops, even Kerosene, Coal and Wood Stoves” and that it is not suitable for induction stoves. As regards Issue No.2, it has been submitted by the OP No.1 that the aforesaid Futura Pressure Cooker comes with an Advanced Pressure Regulated System instead of a vent weight known as “whistle”. Moreover, the Instruction Manual under the heading “Trial Run” (on page nos.10-11 of Annexure R-1/1) clearly lays down that the correct heat setting allows “a low, gentle and steady sound of escape of steam from the pressure regulator” to be heard. OP No.1 further asserts that this Pressure Regulating System (based on an Advanced Patented Technology) better retains the pressure required for cooking and allows the excess pressure to be released continuously. So far as Issue No.3 is concerned, OP No.1 submits that the aforesaid product has been purchased by the complainant from the Canteen Services Department of the Airforce Station [Annexure C-1] and that the Canteen Stores Department had directed OP No.1 to supply Operating Instructions in English language only. OP No.1 further avers that a customer is offered a bilingual cookbook free of cost, if he so desires, but that it had not been claimed by the complainant in the present case.
3.                We have heard ld. Counsels for complainant and OP No.1 and have also perused the case file as well as written statement filed by OP No.1.
4.                In the present case,  three points, which require consideration of this Forum are involved, which are as under:

1. It does not work on Induction Chulha.
2. It does no blow whistle.
3. Operating instructions and tested receipts are not provided in bilingual language.

5.                Now, we take up the issue No.1. Undisputedly, the complainant had purchased the product in question i.e. 3 Ltr. Futura Pressure Cooker F-40 F-52 T-543617 Index No.014060D. The Op No.2 has placed the instructions of the product in question on the case file as Annexure R1. From a bare perusal of instructions mentioned in Annexure R-1, it is quite clear that the product is suitable for gas, electricity, halogen, ceramic cooktops, even kerosene, coal and wood stoves which does not include suitable for induction cooktops as the product allegedly purchased by the complainant is not an Induction Compatible Pressure Cooker. It is regrettable to know that the complainant might have misconceived the notion of difference between Induction Cooktop and Electric Stove. In case of former technology, the cooking vessel such has a ferromagnetic material (such as cast-iron) is placed in magnetic field created by the cooking element. However, in the latter case, any general metallic cooking vessel material is placed on the iron restive heating coils.
6.                Now, we are taking up issue Nos.2 & 3 together being interconnected and interlinked with each other. Op No.2 in its reply has specifically mentioned that in the instructions manual in the column of “Trial Run” it has been written that correct heat setting allows low, gentle and steady continuous escape of steam from the pressure regulator which is based on an advanced patented technology unlike the conventional loud whistle blowing of pressure cookers. It is pertinent to mentioned here that the complainant though wanted the best advanced technology labelled product but still wished to find the convenient with old conventional technology. It takes some time for anyone to understand and adopt any new advanced technology and that it certainly demands little patience but in the present case instead of enjoying the product in question which he had purchased he gets into involved in litigation without any reasons. No doubt, it is always safe and expected to acquire knowledge through text before actually getting it through practical means. Had the complainant and his family members, on their demand, been denied bilingual cookbook specifically by OP No.1 or OP No.2, the case might have taken different turn.  As such, we find no infirmity with the reply put forward by OP No.1 in response to the grievance raised by the complainant by way of the present complaint. The complainant no doubt is a vigilant customer but he would have vigilant enough and inquire thoroughly about the product before purchase. Had after making reasonable inquiry by the consumer he feels that he has been deceived for what he had been told earlier or that the quality of the product is not upto the mark or that it suffers from some manufacturing defect, he can certainly justify his grievance.        
7.                In view of the above discussion, we arrive at a conclusion that the goods allegedly sold by OP Nos.1 & 2 to the Complainant are free from any manufacturing defect and that OPs are not guilty of any deficiency in service. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to cost. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to the record room.

 

Announced on: 21.11.2017

 

PUSHPENDER KUMAR                ANAMIKA GUPTA                            D.N. ARORA

MEMBER                                    MEMBER                                     PRESIDENT