Haryana

Panchkula

128/2015

DHARMENDRA KUMAR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S KASTURI MEGA VENTURES PVT.LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

04 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  PANCHKULA.                                                             

Consumer Complaint No	:	128 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	20.07.2015
Date of Decision	:	04.11.2015

                                                                                          

Dharmender Kumar son of Sh.Laxmi Chand r/o House No.401 GH 68, Sector 20 Panchkula.

                                                                                          ….Complainant

Versus

1.       M/s Kasturi Mega Ventures Pvt. Ltd.Village Taj Nagar, Tehsil Farrukh Nagar, Gurgaon, Haryana, 123503.                   

2.       Star CJ Network India Pvt. Limited 6^th Floor, Star CJ Plaza, Doctor BD Marg, Near Apsara Cinema, Goregaon, Mumabi-400007.

                                                                        ….Opposite Parties

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Quorum:               Mrs.Anita Kapoor, Member.

                             Mr.S.P.Attri, Member.

 

For the Parties:     Ms. Pushpa authorized representative for the                                             complainant. 

Ms. Anu Advocate for Ops.

ORDER

 

(Anita Kapoor,  Presiding Member)

 

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Ops with the averments that he purchased a LPG Stove of company Sunflame vide invoice No.201410261263 dated 28.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.5750/- and the same was delivered in a sealed pack. After opening of the packages, the complainant found that the burner was not in proper shape. On the compliant of the complainant, the Ops replaced the same with new one but the complainant noticed that there were scratches on the surface of replaced LPG. Thereafter, the complainant again intimated the Ops and the LPG stove was replaced again with new one.  The complainant installed the third LPG stove but he noticed that it was not working properly as during cooking process all the utensils got blackened forcing the complainant to lodge another complaint with the Ops. Thereafter, the Ops did their best to rectify the complaint but to no avail and even the nozzle of the stove was also broken. Due to the act and conduct of the Ops the complainant has not only suffered mental agony and harassment but also suffered financial loss which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. In evidence, the complainant has tendered affidavit and documents Annexure CA, Annexure C1 to Annexure C5.
2. On notice, the Ops appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing joint reply wherein several preliminary objections such as locus standi and complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer have taken. It is submitted that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands as earlier the complaint was filed on behalf of Pushpa, who did not have any locus standi to initiate the complaint and prior to filing of reply by OP No.1 earlier complaint was dismissed as withdrawn and has been re-filed by substituting the name of Pushpa with Dharmendra.  It is further submitted that the retail invoice dated 28.10.2014 bearing No.201410281283 bears the name of Dharemdera Kumar which is contrary to the present complainant in whose name the complaint has been re-filed without any addition or deletion. The present complaint is vague and baseless because no specific defect has been pointed out and no question for blackening of all utensils has arisen at all.  The Sunflame Enterprises Private limited is manufacturer of the Sunflame appliances and it is an organization having good reputation as it manufactures kitchen gadgets and other electrical appliances after passing stringent quality controls and thus no defective product can be sold in the market. The complainant had lodged first complaint on 29.12.2014 and thereafter on 15.01.2015 whereby only jet service was effected which means that pores of the burner get blocked by over spilling of liquid or on account of impurity of gas which cannot be termed as any kind of defect.  The product was working properly but despite that the complainant had lodged two frivolous complaints on 09.03.2015 and on 13.03.2015 but refused to get the product inspected. It is denied that there is any manufacturing defect in the product. It is submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops. Other pleas were controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. In evidence the Ops have tendered  affidavit and documents Annexure R1, Annexure R1 to Annexure R7.
3. We have heard authorized representative of the complainant and learned counsel for the Ops and have also perused the record.
4. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the OPs, at the very outset, argued for dismissal of the complaint on an averment that the complainant has not come to the forum with clean hands. In support of that averment, it was argued that the complainant had not initially filed a complaint in his own name and that it was his wife who had filed a complaint qua this grievance and it was later on that she withdrew it and it was further thereafter, that the complainant filed a complaint in his own name.
5. The plea made on behalf of the contesting OPs is plainly specious. If a cause is filed, inadvertently or otherwise by the spouse of the complainant and the cause is withdrawn on realization of the technical defect, it cannot be argued that the present complainant did not come to the Forum with clean hands. It is so particularly asserted because the OPs are not recorded to have opposed the statement made by Ms. Pushpa W/o present complainant Dharminder Kumar to withdraw the complaint. A perusal of the Photostat copy of the certified copy of the relevant order bears it out. That being so, it is not open to the OPs to make that grievance in this complaint.
6. The precise items of grievance made by the complainant are recorded in the course of Para-2,3 and 4 of the complaint which are extracted hereunder: -

           “2.     That the order was delivered in a sealed parcel and after opening the parcel it was noticed that the shape of the burner was not proper. So a complaint was made to the O.P. and it was replaced by the second one. And when second parcel was opened by the complainant it was noticed that there were scratches on surface of the LPG. So again one more complaint was made to O.P.

           3.      That the O.P. replaced the aforesaid second LPG stove with a third one. And when the complainant installed the third LPG stove supplied by the O.P. and again it was noticed that this was also not working properly on lightening the stove all utensils were blackened during the process of cooking. Complaint was again made to the O.P. that this third LPG stove is again not working properly. The O.P. has sent many persons to rectify the complaint. Even after their best efforts the deficiency in the gas stove was not removed.

           4.      That even the efforts made by the concerned persons of the O.P. the nozzle of the deficient gas stove was broken apart.”     

7.       Though the corresponding paras of the written statement are on a denial format, it is apparent from a perusal thereof that the defects pointed out by the complainant have not been controverted. Grievance, however, is made in the course of Para-4 of the written statement that the complainant behaved harshly to the employee who went over to the former for rendering sales service. Likewise, the receipt of averred complaints has not been controverted by the OPs who opted to harp upon the fact that they are an organization of repute and that the products manufacture by them have to go through stringent quality controls “and thus no defective product can be sold in the market”. The further averment is that “in case of any genuine manufacturing defect, the same can be repaired/replaced”.

 8.      A conjunctive perusal of the pleadings made by the parties would indicate that the factum of there being defect in the relevant product has not been controverted by the OPs. It is further not the plea made on behalf of the OPs that the product was made functional ultimately and that no grievance subsists on the part of the complainant.

 9.      Needless to assert, the mere fact that the product under consideration had been manufactured by a reputed concern is not ipso facto proof adequate enough to negate the validity of the grievance made by the complainant. A consumer, by the very nature of things, cannot be allowed to be at the mercy of manufacture of a branded product, be it of national or international quality level. The Consumer Dispensation has to notice the factum of deficiency of services and grant relief to the consumer to the permissible extent.

 10.    In the light of forgoing discussion, we are clear in our mind that the complainant has been able to prove that there was deficiency in services on the part of the OPs in the matter of sale of a product which could not be completely repaired in spite of repeated efforts at the hands of the after-sales service personnel. In that situation, the only option available to the forum is to concur with the complainant in the format of relief for the refund of the price paid by him for the purchase of that article.

 11.    We would, accordingly, order as under: -

           a)      That OPs shall refund the purchase price of Rs.5750/- paid by the complainant and complainant would handover the LPG stove back to the company.

           b)      OPs shall pay sum of Rs.10,000/- as the compensation for the harassment and mental agony experienced by the complainant; and

           c)       OPs shall also pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as the cost of litigation.

12.     The liability of the OPs to pay the aforementioned amount shall be joint and several.

13.     OPs shall comply with this order within a period of one month       from the date its communication to it comes about.

14.     A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the   parties to the complaint.

 

 

ANNOUNCED

04.11.2015      

                                       S.P.ATTRI           ANITA KAPOOR  

                                       MEMBER            PRESIDING MEMBER           

 

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

                                 

 

                                         ANITA KAPOOR                                                                                                PRESIDING MEMBER