BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 11/02/2011

Date of Order : 30/06/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 84/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The case of the complainant is as follows :

On 16-12-2009, the complainant purchased a pressure cooker from the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party the manufacturer of the pressure cooker provided 10 years warranty for the same. While so, on 08-05-2010 at about 8.15 a.m., when the complainant's wife was cooking rice, the cooker burst. The incident created a panic in the home, the complainant's wife and children got frightened and the neighbours gathered at the scheme when they heard the notice of blasting. The complainant lodged a complaint with the 3^rd opposite party. In reply, the 3^rd opposite party intimated that the licence of the 1^st opposite party was cancelled with effect from 27-10-2010. The act of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to sell inferior quality pressure cookers by affixing ISI mark even after the cancellation of license amounts to unfair trade practice. The complainant preferred this complaint seeking direction against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation and to direct the 3^rd opposite party to take action against the 1^st opposite party for selling substandard quality pressure cooker by affixing ISI mark and also to see that the fake pressure cookers (Pigeon) are withdrawn from the market.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party :

The 1^st opposite party had complied with the standards set out by the 3^rd opposite party in manufacturing pressure cookers. Due to some unforeseen reasons the license could not be extended, however immediately the licence was renewed. The 1^st opposite party was holding valid licence to affix ISI mark at the time of sale of the pressure cooker to the complainant. The complainant was given a brand new pressure cooker in response to his complaint. The alleged incident occurred due to the lack of carefulness on the part of the complainant. The complaint is filed only to harass the 1^st opposite party.

3. The defense of the 2^nd opposite party :

On 22-05-2010, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and requested to replace the pressure cooker which had been purchased from them. The 2^nd opposite party demanded the remnants of the cooker, though the complainant agreed to produce the same, he did not do so for his own reasons. In the mean time, the complainant took up the matter with the 1^st opposite party and got it replaced with a new one. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party.

4. The contention of the 3^rd opposite party :

On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party conducted an investigation on 20-05-2010. The licence of the 1^st opposite party was cancelled on 27-01-2010 due to misuse observed by BIS Bangalore branch. The defective pressure cooker of the complainant was replaced by the 1^st opposite party. With regard to the allegation on account of selling of substandard quality pressure cooker by the 1^st opposite party, the BIS had taken effective steps as per the provisions of BIS Act 1986 and random inspections are being conducted in the market presently.

5. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A8 were marked on his side. The witness for the 1^st opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext. B1 was marked on their side. Exts. X1 to X3 were also marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- from the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties?

2. Whether the 3^rd opposite party is to take action against the 1^st opposite party in selling sub-standard pressure cooker by affixing fake ISI mark?

7. Point No. i. :- Admittedly on 06-12-2009, the complainant purchased a pressure cooker from the 2^nd opposite party at a price of Rs. 778.28 which was manufactured by the 1^st opposite party. 10 years warranty has been provided by the 1^st opposite party evidenced by Ext. A1 warranty card. According to the complainant, the pressure cooker burst on 08-05-2010 at about 8.15 a.m. due to its manufacturing defect. It is stated that the complainant is entitled to get compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered by him and his family. It is further stated that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties selling sub-standard pressure cookers by affixing fake ISI marks and the 3^rd opposite party is to take action against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

8. On the other hand, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties contended that there is no evidence to prove that the gadget suffers from manufacturing defect. According to them, the cancellation of the licence of the 1^st opposite party is much after the purchase of the product by the complainant. They maintain that the 3^rd opposite party in Ext. X1 report stated that the ISI mark of the product of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party is genuine.

9. Admittedly, the complainant preferred Ext. A2 complaint before the 3^rd opposite party complaining about the product of the 1^st opposite party. In consequence of Ext. A2, the 3^rd opposite party conducted a detailed enquiry into the matter and prepared Exts. X1 and X2 reports dated 20-05-2010 and 28-07-2010 respectively. The conclusion in Ext. X1 reads as follows :

“(2) As seen from the complaint product the lid has hit the roof and got damaged. Due to downward pressure by the body the stove has got damaged (bent).

(3) Safety valve safely relief device and gasket release system could have failed together. So that the burst has taken place we may organise to carry out investigation at licensee end at the earliest.”

The investigating officer of the 3^rd opposite party unequivocally came to a conclusion that the burst of the pressure cooker was due to the defect of the same. The complainant is only on account of mental agony and hardships caused to the complainant and his family due to the impact of the accident. However, the intangible loss sustained by the complainant and his family cannot be discarded and has to be accounted for howsoever. To abate the agony of the complainant to an extent whatsoever, we feel an amount of Rs. 20,000/- is to be awarded, this Forum is only of the positive view that this might alleviate the grevious situation. Held so.

10. Point No. ii. :- The complainant urges this Forum to direct the 3^rd opposite party to take action against the 1^st opposite party for selling substandard quality, pressure cooker by affixing fake ISI mark. The 3^rd opposite party is the authorised agency who is to approve the quality and safety of various products including the pressure cookers. As per Ext. X2, the licence of the 1^st opposite party was cancelled with effect from 27-08-2009 due to misuse observed, however, they obtained the licence with effect from 27-01-2010. Ext. B1 goes to show that the licence of the 1^st opposite party was renewed from 01-04-2009 to 31-03-2010. The 3^rd opposite party in their version stated that the licence was cancelled with effect from 27-01-2010. Nothing is forthcoming on the part of the 3^rd opposite party to explain the above anomaly which goes to show the irresponsible and devil-may-care attitude on their part in dealing with the complaints which they had received. They have been authorised not only to issue or renew the licenses but duty bound to assure the safety, quality, standard etc. of various products and maintain precaution in order to safeguard the life and property of the public. We have no doubt that the 3^rd opposite party will not relent from taking stern and stringent action so as to sustain law.

11. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 20,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the grounds stated above.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30^th day of June 2012.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========