Delhi

North

CC/149/2018

AMRITA CHAUDHARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. INALSA HOME APPLIANCES, - Opp.Party(s)

UMESH GOEL

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I (North District)

[Govt. of NCT of Delhi]

Ground Floor, Court Annexe -2 Building, Tis Hazari Court Complex, Delhi- 110054

 

Consumer Complaint No.: 149/2018

 

Ms. Amrita Chaudhary

D/o Sh. Balbir Singh

R/o 5377/7, New Chandrawal,

Jawahar Nagar, Delhi-110007                   …                       Complainant

                                                          Vs.

M/s Inalsa Home Appliances

Tuareg Marketing Pvt. Ltd.

Company

through

Director/ Authorised Representative,

154, Bhalswa, New Delhi-110033                        …           Opposite Party No.1

 

M/s Bharat Electronics,

98/E, Kamla Nagar,

New Delhi-110007                                               …            Opposite Party No.2

ORDER

31/03/2023

Ashwani Kumar Mehta, Member:

 

          The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief details of facts, as alleged by the Complainant in the Complaint, are that the complainant had purchased one INALSA Food Processor, model-Wonder Maxie Plus serial number-AP16010231from an Authorised dealer M/s Bharat Electronics i.e. OP No.2 with warranty against any manufacturing defect for a period of 2 years on product and 5 years on motor from the date of purchase for a total sale consideration of Rs.5500/- vide Bill/ Cash Memo No.- 16437 dated 14.08.2016.

The said food processor had not been working properly for which the complainant made 8 complaints since the purchase of the said food processor as per followings details:-

1. DEL1611050049 - 05.11.2016
2. DEL1612060068 - 06.12.2016
3. DEL1702090052 - 09.03.2017
4. DEL1707120032 - 12.07.2017
5. DEL1707310005 - 31.07.2017
6. DEL1708050033 - 05.08.2017
7. DEL1804160041 - 16.04.2018
8. DEL1806150028 - 15.06.2018

On 17.06.2018, the technician representative of respondent No.1 visited at complainant's place but due to unavailability of the material required for the repair of the said food processor, didn't do anything to that food processor. Due to which that food processor was no more in use of the complainant and the complainant faced many problem due to malfunctioned/ defective food processor of OP no.1. Thereafter, the technician again visited at complainant's place on dated 19.06.18 to repair the said food processor and the complainant had paid the amount of Rs. 130/- to get the main wire of the said food processor changed because the said food processor's switch gets ON/ OFF automatically. But still it had a noise problem and bottom pad were still not stick to the surface because of vibration caused by it and processing bowl was also loose which the complainant conveyed to the technician  but in response, the technician representative of OP-1 told that these problems would exist in it. The original spare part change receipt dated 19.06.2018 is also filed with Complaint. The problem was not resolved even after many complaints, the complainant has sent them many E-mails for the replacement of the said food processor because it has manufacturing defects which cannot be repaired. It can be be seen from the above mentioned eight complaints of the said food processor. The complainant has also sent E mails to the OP as per following details:-

1. For the replacement of said food processor 28.06.2018 (to which the Manager, Mr. Hirdesh Sharma visited at the complainant's home)
2. First reminder for the same - 08.07.2018 (to which written reply was sent by the respondent no 1 but no action has been taken by them)
3. Final reminder 12.07.2018 (written reply with no satisfactorily response
4. Second reminder -13.07.2018 (to which no reply was received from the respondent no.1)
5. Re forwarded the same mail - 16.07.2018 (to which no reply was received from the respondent no. 1)
6. Last E-mail as requested by Ms. Jharna representative of the respondent no.1-18.07.2018 (to which no reply was received from the respondent no.1).

The true copies of abovesaid emails are also filed.

It has been submitted by the complainant that it defeats the Complainant’s sole purpose as she has purchased it for her mother because due to some medical health issues (having Arthritis in her hands), the Complainant’s mother is unable to do household chores including kneading the flour manually. Therefore, the complainant has preferred this complaint for following claims against the OPs:-

1. Cost of the product.                                                                                                                                 Rs.5,500/-
2. Cost incurred towards mails, telephones and visits                                                                                Rs.2,000/-
3. The messing charges for the period during the time whenthe said food processor was not working.   Rs.5,000/-                             
4. Damages to the Complainant for trauma, mental agony-                                                                       Rs.4,50,000/-
5. Litigation Cost                                                                                                                                        Rs.25,000/-

Total Amount                                                                                                                 Rs.4,87,500/-

Accordingly, notices were issued to the OPs and in response to the Notice issued, the OP has filed reply denying that any defective food processor was sold to the Complainant. It was the Complainant who has not used the food processor properly as per the guidelines and directions mentioned in the manual. Each and every possible service was provided to the Complainant on her each complaint but it was the Complainant who was not using the food processor as per the instructions given by the technician on each visit. The technician had charged a sum of Rs.130/- from the Complainant at the time of repairing the said food processor as the warranty period did not cover the physical damage and due to this the technician of the answering OP charged a meager amount of Rs.130/-. It has also been denied by the OP that the complainant was harassed by the OP on the basis of their false assurance and promise. It is further denied that there is nobody to listen to the Complainant’s grievance even after an e-mail was sent by the Complainant on multiple occasions. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP’s technician visited the house of the Complainant a number of times on each and every complaint made by the Complainant but it was the Complainant who never followed the directions and instructions given by him.

On the above reply of the OP-1, the Complainant has filed rejoinder denying that Complainant has not used the food processor properly. The Complainant had duly mentioned the detailed defects which were not cared to look into. It has also been denied that proper service had provided by the OP and it has specifically been denied by the Complainant that the Complainant was not using the food processor as per instructions given by the technicians on his visit. Since no instruction was provided by the technician to the Complainant, there is no question of instructions to be followed by the Complainant. However, complainant being a vigilant person has used the said product as per user manual of the said product. It is also pertinent to mention here that whenever the technician visited site, the complainant herself had also given feedback regarding unsatisfactory/ deficiency of service provided by the OP/ technician.

Accordingly, the complaint has been examined in view of the facts of the case and averments/documents/Evidence submitted by both the parties and it has been observed that:-

1. The fact that the Complainant’s raised the issue of faults in Food Processor with OP first time on 05-11-2016 ( after two months of purchase of product) is admitted fact and is not in dispute.
2. OP has failed to file any evidence to substantiate that  the Complainant was not using the food processor as per the instructions given for use of food processor.
3. It has not been denied by the OP, reveal that the complaints of faults in the Air Conditioner were made 8 times from 5-11-2016 to 15-06-2018 within warranty period. This proves that the Food Processor in question was having defects from the date of its purchase.
4. Number of emails from the complainant to the OP also corroborate that the OP has failed to remove the defects in his product. 

 

               In view of the above observations, we are of the considered view that the complainant has suffered directly due to deficient service of the OP (M/s Inalsa Home Appliances Tuareg Marketing Pvt. Ltd) in terms of the deficiency which includes  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained in relation to any service and includes any act of negligence or omission or commission by such person which causes loss or injury to the consumer. Therefore, we feel appropriate to direct the OP (M/s Inalsa Home Appliances Tuareg Marketing Pvt. Ltd)) to  pick up the Food Processor from the place of the Complainant and refund Rs.5500/- (Rupees Five Thousand Five Hundred only) within thirty (30) days with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 14-08-2018 (date of filing of complaint) till the date of the payment. Besides, the OP is also directed to pay Rs.10000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation to the Complainant for the mental pain, agony and harassment. It is clarified that if the abovesaid amount is not paid by the OP to the Complainant within the period as directed above, the OP shall be liable to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of expiry of 30 days period.

Office is directed to supply the copy of this order to the parties as per rules. Order be also uploaded on the website.  Thereafter, file be consigned to the record room.

                  Sd/-                                                                                    Sd/-

(Harpreet Kaur Charya)                                                    (Ashwani Kumar Mehta)

              Member                                                                             Member

                                         

                                                            Sd/-

   (Divya Jyoti Jaipuriar)

                              President