Haryana

Karnal

CC/25/2020

Ms. Ritu Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sunflame Enterprises Private Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Chaudhary

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 25 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.13.01.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:31.10.2022

 

Ms. Ritu Sharma wife of Chander Shekhar, House no.2143, Sector-7, Urban Estate, Karnal 132001 District Karnal, Haryana.

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

1.     Sunflame Enterprises Private Limited, plot no.58, Sector 27C, Mathura Road, Faridabad-121 003, Haryana, India.

 

2.     Mehta Home Care Service, P-12 Batra Colony, Model Town Panipat-132103 (Haryana) Pin code 132103.

 

3.     Madhav Stores, Meerut Road, opposite K.R. Cinema, Sector-14, Karnal-132001.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

 

 Argued by: Sh.Gaurav Chaudhary, counsel for the complainant.

                    OPs no.1 and 3 exparte.

                    Shri Dheeraj Sachdeva, counsel for the OP no.2.       

 

                    (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as after amendment under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that  complainant purchased a sunflame Lotus hob 4 burner on 04.09.2017 from OP no.3 for a total consideration of Rs.11,640/-. The complainant was also assured that the glass top of the burner had high tensile strength and therefore practically being unbreakable. All the assurance and commitment by the company fell flat when on 22.10.2019, while the complainant was working in the kitchen, suddenly a loud explosion like sound came from the burner. The noise of the explosion was so high that it sent the complainant in deep shock for a few minutes. When complainant regained her consciousness, did she realize that the glass top of the hob had blasted.  The complainant was lucky enough to have escaped the blast with minor scratches but the complainant was mentally traumatized. The complainant then contacted OP no.3 from where the complainant had bought the burner, they told the complainant to contact the customer care number of OP no.1. The complainant then lodged the complaint on 22.10.2019 itself vide reference no.ALL19102296469 but OP was not bothered the said complaint. The complainant contacted the service centre i.e. OP no.2 but OP no.2 also did not listen to him. On 02.11.2019, complainant again lodged the complaint with OP no.1 but OP no.1 has not taken any action on the complaint of the complainant. On 06.11.2019, complainant again lodged the complaint with the OPs. OP no.2 sent two technicians who came with the glass, but they could not open two nuts, so they took out the burner and opened the knobs but still they could not open the two nuts, so they left the burner opened, scattered and in dilated condition rendering it completely usable. Unable to open the nuts, the technicians left the parts and condiments of the burner here and there which the complainant had to fend for. On 12.11.2019, OP no.2 sent two persons who told the complainant that the nut needs to be cut open and following which they totally dismantled the burner which rendered deep scratches and lacerations all over the burner. Then they tried to fix a glass top on it but the glass top that the technicians brought with them was of different model, after trying and failing to forcefully affix the glass top of different model, they told the complainant that they will write a requirement to the company regarding the glass top of the complainant’s burner. The technicians again left the burner totally dismantled and annihilated. Till date the burner in question has not been repaired neither any assurance nor any correspondence has been given to her regarding the issue. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.11.2019 to the OPs, but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, Shri Gurpreet Singh representative of OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version stating therein that they apologize for all the trouble complainant suffered. To resolve her grievance, they are replacing the product with new one.  Lateron, on 17.05.2022 none has appeared on behalf of OP no.1 and opted to be proceeded against exparte.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action; mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that company i.e. OP no.1 are working in their fields on principal to principal basis. The OP is not responsible for any alleged deficiency in service on part of manufacturer. Neither any consideration of any amount has been paid by the complainant to OP nor OP had issued any alleged warranty or guaranty for the product in question. Hence, the complainant is not the consumer of the OP. It is further pleaded that the service has been provided to complainant as per the instructions of the manufacturer company. An instruction has been received from the OP no.1 company in regard to the product and service person visited the premises of complainant and found that the glass top of the product in question was broken/damaged. As per the procedure and directions of OP no.1 raised a request of part i.e. glass top to the OP no.1. After receiving the part, the same was brought to the house of complainant, but same could not fitted due to mismatch of size burner. OP again raised a request to the company to provide the appropriate part of fit size. But company has not provided the same to the OP. The same fact was duly intimated to the complainant that the part is not made available by the company and as and when the same will be received to the OP, it will be installed, but the company has not provided the part. Thereafter, OP has quit from providing the service to Manufacturer Company i.e. OP no.1. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP no.3 did not appear and proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the Commission.

5.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

6.             Complainant has tendered into evidence her affidavit Ex.CW1/A, photocopy of bill Ex.C1, photographs Ex.C2 and Ex.C3,  copy of email of complainant Ex.C4, copy of legal notice Ex.C5, copy of postal receipt Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 17.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             On the other hand, OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ramesh Mehta Ex.RW1/A and closed the evidence on 09.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has vehemently submitted that she purchased a sunflame Lotus hob 4 burner on 04.09.2017 from OP no.3 for a total consideration of Rs.11,640/-. On 22.10.2019 the glass top of the hob had blasted. Thereafter, she made many complaints to OPs in this regard but they did not bother the same. Ultimately, on 06.11.2019 OP no.2 sent two technicians who came with the glass, but they unable to open the nuts. On 12.11.2019, OP no.2 sent two persons who told the complainant that the nut needs to be cut open and they tried to fix a glass top on it but the glass top was of different model, after trying and failing to forcefully affix the glass top of different model, they told the complainant that they will write a requirement to the company regarding the glass top of the complainant’s burner. She further submitted that she is 53 years widow lady and due to this incident was mentally traumatized. She further argued that due to act and conduct of OP, she is forced to buy another gas burner as the technicians of OP no.2 left the burner in unusable and dismantled and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for OP no.2 on receipt of intimation from the company, service person visited the premises of complainant and found that the glass top of the product in question was broken/damaged. The new glass was brought to the house of complainant, but same could not fitted due to mismatch of size burner. OP again raised a request to the company to provide the appropriate part of fit size but company has not provided the same to the OP. The same fact was duly intimated to the complainant that the part is not made available by the company and as and when the same will be received to the OP, it will be installed, but the company has not provided the part and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

12.           Admittedly, complainant had purchased the sunflame Lotus hob 4 burner from OP no.3. It is also admitted that the same has been blasted during the warranty period.

13.           It is evident from the photographs Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 the product in question was totally burned. OP no.1 in its written version specifically mentioned that they are ready to replace the product with new one. OP no.2 also in its written version admitted that on the instruction of the OP no.1, service person visited the premises of complainant and found that the glass top of the product in question was broken/damaged and after receiving the part, the same was brought to the house of complainant, but same could not fitted due to mismatch of size burner. OP again raised a request to the company to provide the appropriate part of fit size. But company has not provided the same to the OP. In view of the above, it is well proved that the product in question was having manufacturing defect and the same could not replaced during warranty period.

14.           To rebut the evidence produced by the complainant, OPs no.1 and 3 did not appear and opted to be proceeded against exparte. Thus, the evidence produced by the complainant is unchallenged and unrebutted and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Thus, the act of the OPs no.1 to 3 amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. During the course of arguments the complainant also stated that she has purchased new burner and cost of burner alongwith compensation and litigation expenses ordered to be refunded.

14.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, we allow the present complaint and direct the OP no.1 being manufacturer to pay Rs.11,640/- to the complainant as cost of the burner. We further direct the OP no.1 to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony suffered by her and Rs.3300/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. This order shall be complied with within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Dated:31.10.2022                                                                     

                                                                 President,

                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)    

                     Member                    Member