BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 28^th DAY OF MARCH 2024

ORDER

SMT. K. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR, MEMBER

Complaint filed U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019, complainant seeking direction to OP to pay Rs.20,000/- for defect in the product and deficiency of service which caused harassment and mental agony, to pay interest at the rate of 9.5% p.a. from the date of closure till the realization on Rs.20,000/-, direct the OP to pay cost of proceedings and such other reliefs.

2. Brief facts of this case are as follows:-

Complainant have purchased the AGARO regal 3 Jar personal blender, 400W, serrated and cross blade with detachable base/mixer/grinder/smoothie from Amazon on 03.09.2023, which carries 1year warranty. Complainant stated that she has received a damaged blender, both jars with 3 blade bottom and 2 blade locking system/blade base are unattached. When the wet items are blended with the help of jar and it leaks the water into the motor. The same has been intimated to OP by sending an E-mail on 03.10.2023 conveyed the detailed information about the problem she is facing with defective product and requested to take back the same. On 10.10.2023 again she sent a mail for which she has not received any reply from OP side, subsequently on 12.10.2023 she sent an E-mail with invoice copy and registered the complaint before the OP company. On 29.10.2023 OP replied to her mail stating an arrangement will be made to send technician. The technician visited and checked the product and he also declares that the said product is defective one. He also told that the team member will come and exchange the defective product. The technician immediately called OP over phone and explained about the defective product to company. In spite, OP did not approach complainant for any kind of replacement or refund.  Once OP has sent spare blades to complainant which cannot be fixed for the defective jars, is of no use. With no other option complainant approached this commission for relief when she faced problem with non-working defective and unable to buy alternative product without solution to grievance. Hence she alleged the deficiency of service on the part of OP, since they supplied the defective product and practiced deficiency in their service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

3. Notice sent to OP through RPAD, which was duly served on OP but OP did not appear before this commission on the date of appearance, hence OP placed Ex-parte.

4. At this stage complainant filed affidavit evidence along with Certificate U/S 65B of Indian Evidence Act and 2 copies of documents in supporting the affidavit evidence which are marked as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.3. Complainant also filed written arguments and submitted oral arguments too. Heard complainant and perused the documents on record.

5. On the basis of above pleadings for our consideration are as follows:-

i) Whether the complainant proves the deficiency of service on the part of OP?

ii) Whether complainant is entitled for the relief?

iii) What order?

6.  Our answers to the above points are as follows:-

Point No.1:- Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Partly Affirmative.

Point No.3:- As per the final order.

                      REASONS

7. Point No.1&2:- These points are inter-connected to each other and for the sake of convenience, to avoid repetition of facts, these points are taken up together for common discussion.

8. Complainant has produced AGARO Regal 3 jar personal blender, 400 W, serrated and cross blade with detachable base mixer/grinder/smoothie/juice maker from Amazon which is sold by OP. Complainant has paid Rs.1,999/- for the product and has produced tax invoice dated 03.09.2023 issued by Amazon.in which is at Ex.P.1. Immediately after the receipt of the blender she noticed that 2 jars having, 3 blades and 2 blades in the bottom and the locking system were not attached to the bottom base. For the reason the wet items blended in the jar, leaks and water enteres into the motor. Complainant reported the same on 03.10.2023 in writing by sending mail requesting to take back the product and refund the money. Complainant has sent several E-mails communications to OP which are at Ex.P.2 (a) to Ex.P.2 (f) on different date’s but OP has responded twice only. After several requests and complaints raised by the complainant OP has sent technician from their side to examine the product as alleged in the complaint. Technician also reported the same to the OP company that the product is defective one and the same will be collected within 2-3 days.

9. In spite of several requests and E-mails communications to OP, OP did not come forward to take it back and refund the money to the complainant. In case OP is genuine with his attitude OP could replace the blender immediately after the first complaint raised with company or could have refund the amount to the complainant but OP did not do so. OP neither collected the defective product from the place of the complainant nor appeared before this commission at least after the receipt of the notice from this commission to appear and to defend its case. Hence the documents and the pleadings placed before this commission by complainant are unchallenged.

10. Complainant has claimed Rs.20,000/- for the deficiency of service from OP included the cost of product i.e. Rs.1,999/-. Though the OP has committed the mistake and caused deficiency of service by not replacing the product by collecting defective one Rs.20,000/- is seems to be exorbitant. Therefore OP is liable to repay the cost of produce i.e. Rs.1,999/- with interest at the rate of 8%p.a. from the date of payment i.e. from 03.09.2023and Rs.2,000/- towards compensation to the complainant for causing mental agony and deprived by usage of blender, not allowed to buy another blender in place of defective one. Op is also liable to pay Rs.1,500/- towards cost of litigation, since the OP made the complainant to incur money on filing this complaint without her fault. On the above reasons we answer Point No.1&2 accordingly.

11. Point No.3:- In view of the discussion referred above, we proceed to pass the following:-

                                   ORDER

1. Complaint filed by the complainant U/S 35 of Consumer Protection Act, is hereby allowed in part.
2. OP shall pay Rs.1,999/- with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 03.09.2023 till realization.
3. OP further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,500/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of order, failing which OP shall pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. on Award amount from the date of order till realization.
4. Furnish the copies of the order and return the extra copies of pleadings and documents to the parties, with no cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th day of March, 2024)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1;

NIL