KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, preferred against the judgment dated 17/08/2023, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri, in CC/27/2019.

The appellants’ case in brief is that, the Respondent/Complainant, had purchased one Futura Non-Stick Kadai on 04/08/2015 from the appellant no. 2/ OP no. 2, having two years guarantee, as mentioned in Guarantee card no. Q55D45L002212. In spite of having taken precaution, mentioned in the “Cautions” clause, in the guarantee card, the Non-Stick coating of the cook ware, started to peel off. As the defect occurred within the guarantee period, the Respondent/Complainant, visited the store of appellant no. 2/ OP no. 2, on 18/10/2016, who issued a receipt after taking the cook ware for repairing. On 12/12/2016, appellant no. 2/ OP no. 2, intimated her over phone, to collect the repaired cook ware, but when she went to collect the same, the appellant no. 2/ OP no.2, demanded Rs. 100/-, as repairing charge. When the respondent/complainant, asked for a receipt against the repairing charge, the appellant no. 2/ Op no. 2, refused to issue any receipt, for which reason the appellant no. 2/Op no. 2, also did not hand over the repaired cook ware, to the respondent/complainant. On receiving no response, the respondent/complainant, issued a legal notice on 19/04/2017. To which the appellants’ sent a reply separately dated 08/05/2017 and 23/05/2017, in which the “Service Center Inspection Report” had been attached, which showed that the cook ware had not been repaired and was not available for delivery, which contradicted each other’s reply. The respondent/complainant also noted that, even though the cook ware was not repaired, the appellant no. 2/OP no. 2, had called the respondent/complainant on 12/12/2016, for collecting the repaired cook ware. Finding no alternative she lodged this complaint before the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri with necessary prayers.

The appellants’ contested the claim by filing written version wherein, they denied the allegations made by the respondent/complainant and admitting that, the respondent/complainant, had visited the store of appellant no.2/ OP no. 2, on 18/10/2016, with the defective cook ware, which had been damaged due to in- appropriate use and there was no manufacturing defect. Even then, the appellant no.2 /OP no. 2, had offered to take appropriate measures to recoat the cook ware, against payment of Rs. 100/- only, the respondent/complainant had agreed to bear the cost. It was also mentioned that the charges for inspection and transportation would be borne by the Company. It was also mentioned that, after enquiring from the Service Center at Mahim, the said cook ware had been damaged due to use of high heat and baking on stains.

After going through the evidence and materials on record, the Ld. DCDRF, passed the impugned order directing the appellants to replace or refund the said Non-Stick Kadai, failing which interest @6% per annum would be levied on the purchased price from the date of purchase, by account payee cheque along with Rs. 2,000/- (Two thousand) only for mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only for depositing before the Consumer Legal Aid account of the Commission within 30 days of the order.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellants’ preferred this instant appeal on the ground that, the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri, had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.

Decision with reasons

Ld. Advocate for the appellant, at the time of final hearing, had submitted, that the respondent/complainant had failed to use the cook ware product, in the manner it should have been used for which reason, the appellants should not be held liable for any deficiency of service. It was further argued, that there had been no manufacturing defect in the purchased cook ware. In any case the cook ware had been the recoated and the minimum cost of Rs. 100/- had been waived off. It was finally argued that the respondent/complainant, in order to extract financial gains had filed this case and the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri had erred, by passing the impugned order.

Ld. Advocate for the respondent/complainant, on the other hand had countered that, the cook ware had been purchased on 04/08/2015 and on 18/10/2016 the Non-stick coating had started to peel off. As the said defect was noticed/detected, within the guarantee period, therefore, the appellants were duty bound to rectify the same. Instead on 12/12/2016, they charged Rs. 100/- for rectifying the same therefore, the appellants were guilty of deficiency of service and the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri, had rightfully passed the impugned order.

The fact of purchase of the cook ware and the subsequent defect noticed within the guarantee period is not disputed, the only point of dispute is whether the impugned order can be sustained or not. The very fact that the coating in the cook ware was found to be defective within the guarantee period, simply suggests that the cook ware ought to have been replaced or repaired without any cost. Therefore, the respondent/complainant, had rightly refused to pay the cost leading to the dispute and finally resulting in the impugned order. In the impugned order, it was decided that the failure of the appellants to redress the concern of the respondent/complainant to her satisfaction, within the guarantee period would tantamount to deficiency of service. As such there is nothing illegal, in the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order, by the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri. Hence for the above reason there is nothing which calls for interference from this end. However, the direction to deposit the amount of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) only, towards the Consumer Legal Aid account of the Commission appears to be excessive, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, which is hereby waived, with the other directions in the impugned judgement remaining the same. As a result, the appeal succeeds.

It is therefore,

Ordered

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest but without costs.

The impugned order is hereby modified to the extent, mentioned in the body of the judgement.

The appellants are directed to comply with the directions passed in the impugned order within 45 days of receipt, of this order failing which, interest @9% PA, would be attracted.

Copy of the order, be sent to the parties, free of costs.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Siliguri, for necessary information.

Statutory deposits, be returned from whom received.

Joint Registrar, Siliguri Circuit Bench of WBSCDRC, to do the needful.