Kerala

Alappuzha

CC/7/2021

Sri.T.J.Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director,Butterfly Ghandhimathi Appliances Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

28 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Pazhaveedu P.O., Alappuzha
 
Complaint Case No. CC/7/2021
( Date of Filing : 11 Jan 2021 )
 
1. Sri.T.J.Thomas
Thekkepalackal House Punnapra.P.O Alappuzha-688004
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. The Managing Director,Butterfly Ghandhimathi Appliances Ltd.
143, Pudupakkam Village, Kelambakkam-Vandalur Road, Kanchipuram District Tamilnadu-603103
2. The Head of Office
Sales and marketing wing Butterfly Gandhimathi Appliances Ltd.,No.9,2nd floor, 3rd Avenue,Indira Nagar, Adayar ,Chennai-600020 Tamilnadu
3. The Proprietor
Abdulla Vessels Mullackal,Alappuzha
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. S. Santhosh Kumar PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Sholy P.R. MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 28 May 2022
Final Order / Judgement

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Saturday the 28th    day of May, 2022.

                                      Filed on  11.01.2021

Present

 

  1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
  2. C.K.lekhamma, B.A.L, LLB (Member)In

CC/No. 7/2021

between

Complainant:-                                                              Opposite parties:-

Sri. T. J. Thomas                                             1.       The Managing Director

Thekkepalackal House                                                Butterfly Gandhimathi

 Punnapra.P.O                                                           Appliance Ltd. 143,

Alappuzha-688004                                                    Pudupakkam Village

(party in person)                                                        Kelambakkan- Vandalur Road

                                                                                 Kanchipuram District

                                                                                 TamilNadu-603103

 

                                                                        2.     The Head of Office

                                                                                Sales and marketing wing.

                                                                                Butterfly Gandimathi Appliances

                                                                                Ltd. No.9, 2nd Floor, 3rd Avenue,

                                                                               Indira Nagar, Adayar,

                                                                               Chennai-600020, TamilNadu

                                                                               (Exparte 10/12/2021

                                                                        3.     The Properitor

                                                                               Abdulla Vessels, Mullackal

                                                                               Alappuzha

                                                                               (Adv. Somanatha Kurup)

                                                                         

ORDER

SMT. C.K.LEKHAMMA(MEMBER)

1.       Brief facts of  complainant’s case are as follows:-

 The complainant approached 3rd opposite party to  purchase  a steel pressure cooker.  Believing  the words opposite parties No.3 salesman, the complainant decided to purchase a 5 liter  pressure cooker of Butterfly.  The complainant had purchased the product on payment of Rs.2900/-. At the time of purchase, the dealer informed that the product has a warranty of five years and  handed over the warranty card.  When asked  about the invoice, 3rd opposite party informed that there is no separate invoice and the warranty cared is the bill.  on 2/12/2020, the complainant’s wife put one glass of rice with the required water in the cooker to  the same for lunch. After closing the lid, as per the operating instructions of the manufacturer  in the warranty card, she lighted the cooker placed on the gas stove.  The complainant in the  kitchen along with her to do the necessary help in cooking.

          Suddenly, along with the first whistle, there was heavy pressure and afterwards, there was bursting sound from the cooker.  It was seen that the rice spread out of the cooker and fell throughout the room along with the hot water. The cooker and pan support also flew, hitting several vessels, cups and pan in the kitchen and finally landed in one corner of the  room about three meters away.  The complainant could also smell the spread of gas in the room.  Somehow, he managed to switch off the stove.  The incident was a great shock to the complainant and his wife.

          The complainant after some hours, telephoned the dealer and told of the incident.  However, there was no answer.  He therefore, took the cooker to the dealer the next day, along with the warranty card, described the incident in detail.    The dealer said that these types of incidents are common and neither the company nor he could help in the matter.

          The complainant  requested to accept back the defective cooker and replace by a cooker of the same price but with more safety features.  On hearing this, the dealer consulted the  company  opposite parties 1 and 2 and replied that the company has agreed only to  replace the cooker by another of the same specification. However, the complainant never wants the same brand cooker with less safety factors but with a cooker of the same cost but with strong safety measures.  The cooker is kept at the shop, since it was entrusted with the dealer.

          Considering  the fact that the problems developed to the cooker during the warranty period, since the complainant believes that the tendency to burst was due to the manufacturing defect to the cooker especially the non-availability of adequate safety measures and since the complainant fears that using the cooker again will be a threat to his life, he has requested to replace the cooker with one having the same cost but with more safety precautions.

          The opposite parties have not yet replaced the cooker in spite of repeated requests.  The complainant has thus lost faith in the product and therefore, wants the company to accept back the product which was responsible for the problems and return its cost with compensation.  Hence the complainant approached this commission for following reliefs.

1) To directing the  opposite parties to refund Rs.2900/- being the cost of the cooker with 15% interest from the date of purchase.

2) Direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

2.       Version of the  opposite parties 1 and 2 are as follows:-

          They are engaged inter alia in the large scale manufacturing of various Home and Kitchen Appliances like stainless and Glass top LPG Stoves.  Table Top Wet Grinders, Mixer Grinders, Aluminium and Stainless Steel Pressure Cookers, Pressure Pans, Stainless  Steel Vacuum Flasks etc   and marketing the same under the Well Known Trademark “Butterfly” all over India and other countries through its marketing network including several e-commerce companies.

          The complainant approached the 3rd opposite party herein who is a Dealer and informed that he purchased the Butterfly Stainless Steel Pressure Cooker from opposite party No.3 on 17/6/2019.  He further informed that, while using the pressure cooker on 2/12/2020, there was a heavy pressure release and bursting sound from one side of the cooker.  He approached the Dealer along with the said Pressure Cooker.

          On examination of the said Pressure Cooker by staff of opposite party No.3, it was found that, periodical maintenance of the Cooker was not done properly and the same was informed to the complainant by the staff of opposite party no.3 herein.  On the next day, Mr. jagadish, technical staff of opposite party No.1 and Opposite party No.2 examined the said Pressure Cooker and found that safety value and gasket not changed till one and half years of use.  At this juncture it is pertinent to state that the Pressure Cooker is having three safety features, namely(i) Pressure Regulating Device, (ii) Safety Relief Device and (iii) Gasket Releasing System. In addition to the said three feature, the rim of the lid and body are designed in such a manner with six locking ribs in order to lock the said lid intact with the body of the Pressure Cooker to prevent removal of lid while cooking.

 Due to negligent mishandling and improper used by the complainant herein the pressure regulating device and safety relief device got failed and final safety Gasket Releasing System (GRS) was working perfectly and heavy pressure got released through GSR hole which has prevented from the cooker from the Burst.  There was no damages found in the Pressure Cooker due to alleged incident because (i) no deformation in the lid of the Pressure Cooker (ii) no deformation at the said six safety locking ribs provided at the rim of the lid. It is pertinent to note that no evidence has been submitted by the complainant along with the complaint to prove that the said  Pressure Cooker and pan support flew, hitting several vessels, cups and pan in the kitchen and finally landed in the one corner of the room. There is no evidence submitted for the alleged  spread of rice throughout the room.  Therefore, opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2  put the complainant to strict proof of the alleged incident.

          Further submits that the alleged incident might have been happened due to violating the user and safety instructions provided by the opposite party No.1 and  opposite party No.2 wherein it was clearly mentioned the change of safety value once in a year and it should be ensured that vent-tube is free of any blockage and steam starts coming out of vent pipe of the cooker freely. The improper maintenance on the part of the complainant led to the failure of safety mechanism of vent tube and safety valve attached to the lid.  Consequently the steam built up inside the  Pressure Cooker came out from the Gasket Releasing system and due to pressure release the Pressure Cooker fell down from the stove on the floor.  Therefore as alleged by the complainant , there is no manufacturing defect either in safety valve or any other safety features and therefore the alleged incident was happened only due to negligent act, mishandling and improper maintenance adopted by the complainant’s wife and also due to carelessness on the side of complainant.

          There is no evidence of the cooker hitting the vessels or any deformation in the Pressure Cooker. From this, it is very clear that the alleged incident might have been happened due to negligent act, mishandling and improper maintenance adopted by the complainant and also due to carelessness of the complainant.   The complainant   without knowing the high manufacturing standard, processes and  infrastructure of 1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party herein, leveled baseless allegations without any iota of truth.  The alleged incident  was happened not due  to manufacturing defect or inherent manufacturing defect and it might be happened due to negligent act, mishandling and improper maintenance adopted by complainant’s wife and also due to carelessness on the part of the complainant.

          The  1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party herein categorically and vehemently deny the allegation of complainant stating the Pressure Cooker of the said model was defective and of inferior quality.  It is false, baseless, untenable, concocted and absurd allegations.       The complainant with a bad intention falsely leveled the said allegation and tries to picturize the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 as third rated company before this Hon’ble Forum to get sympathy and trying to spoil the and good will of them in the public.  The complainant has suppressed the true facts and preferred false complaint with the unclean hands against the opposite parties, to get  inlawful enrichment. Therefore, the above complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini.

          The  1st opposite party and 2nd opposite party submits that if the complainant would have followed strictly all the important safeguards as stipulated by the Bureau of Indian Standard which was clearly stated by the said opposite parties   in their Instruction Manual, no such untoward incident would have occurred.  Therefore it is crystal clear that the complainant has negligently failed to follow the said safeguards as stipulated by the Bureau of Indian Standards which was provided by the 1st opposite party  and 2nd opposite party herein to the knowledge of the complainant by way of providing the aforesaid Instruction Manual with Warranty Card along with the product. 

          There is no manufacturing defect, or inherent manufacturing defect in the Pressure Cooker which was manufactured by the 1st opposite party  and 2nd opposite party and  is no deficiency in service and therefore opposite parties herein are not at all liable to pay the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation as claimed by the complainant  in the above Consumer Complaint. Hence, the above complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini with exemplary costs.

                   The 1st opposite party  and 2nd opposite party submits that despite the fact that there is no manufacturing defect, or inherent manufacturing defect in the Pressure Cooker which was manufactured by them or there is no deficiency in service, the 1st opposite party  and 2nd opposite party is willing to give a replacement of new Butterfly Stainless Steel Pressure Cooker in lieu of the said Pressure cooker for the purpose of customer satisfaction only.

 3.      Version of the 3rd opposite party is as follows:-

          The allegations in the complaint against the opposite party are false and hence denied.  It is true that the complainant had purchased a butterfly pressure cooker from this opposite party on 17/6/2019 and he and his wife themselves had chosen for purchasing that cooker and all the other averments that this opposite party and his salesman has induced them for purchasing butterfly pressure cooker is absolutely false and hence denied.

          As per their choice they voluntarily chosen for purchasing butterfly pressure cooker and had also given the instruction manual with warranty card containing all the safety precautions and safe guards for using the cooker.  The alleged incident after 1 and ½ years of usage of the cooker may be caused due to the non observance of the safety precautions, periodical maintenance were not done and that would be the real cause of the alleged incident and hence the complainant has no cause of action to approach this  Commission as a consumer for making advantage on his own fault against the principle of “Volenti non fit injuria” and hence all the allegations in paragraphs 5,6 and 7 are false and is added only for suiting the vexatious complaint.

          Now the complainant on the basis of the alleged self imposed incident is approaching this Court for obtaining refund of the sale price of the cookers after being used for 1 and ½ years may not be considered as a redressal of grievance of a consumer.  However for protecting the goodwill of the company Butterfly is also ready and willing to replace the cooker of the same specification. But the complainant is not co-operating with  and rushed to the court with this vexatious complaint.

                   Considering the warranty period and goodwill of  the company the manufacturer is ready to replace another with same specification and hence this opposite party had not committed any deficiency in their service or has supplied a defective good.  So the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs prayed for.

3.       Points that arise for consideration are as follows:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get replacement of the disputed pressure cooker from the opposite parties?

2. Whether opposite parties committed deficiency in service? If so what is the quantum of compensation?

3. Reliefs and costs?

4.       Complainant appeared in person. The complainant adduced oral evidence as PW1 and  Ext.A1  was marked.   From the side of opposite parties  RW1  was examined Ext. B1, B2 and MO1 were marked. Thereafter we heard both sides.

 5.      Points No. 1 and 2:-

 The case of the complainant is that the  disputed product was given a 5 year warranty, but after  one and a half year the cooker exploded     while cooking according to the  opposite parties operating instructions.  At that time the complainant and  his wife were at the spot and fortunately they were safe. But they stood frightened and shocked. They felt their escape was a miracle. As the complainant has lost faith in the same branded product of the opposite party and his claim is to get a different product of the opposite party  which has taken more  safety measures  or get a refund of the disputed cooker. Inspite of repeated requests opposite party did not consider the requests. The complainant alleged that  said act of the opposite parties  amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and hence filed this complaint.

         Opposite parties took the stand that the complainant did not follow the instructions of the manual supplied  by them and the product supplied by them  and the product was not suffering manufacturing defect.   However, for protecting the good will of the 1st opposite party, they are ready to replace another cooker with the same specifications to the complainant. But the complainant  was filing this case without accepting the above suggestion.

          Admittedly the complainant had purchased the  dispute pressure cooker on  17/6/2019 manufactured by the 1st opposite party from the 3rd opposite party and the  warranty has been provided for 5 years . Ext. A1(Ext.B1) is the warranty card. In which terms and conditions and instruction of usages are specifically mentioned.  It is not in dispute that the complainant has been using the said cooker for one and a half years. But, there is no evidence to show that periodical maintenance  was carried out on the cooker and the complainant used the cooker as per opposite parties instructions given in the  Ext.A1 manual. Moreover it has not been able  to  show that the cooker has  a manufacturing defect. However, as per Ext.B2 on 10/12//2020 itself opposite parties 1 and 2 approved to replace the defective one  to fresh piece and is also mentioned   in their version. Therefore in the facts and circumstances of the  case we are of the   firm opinion  that the order to replace the defective cooker with a fresh one of the same specification will be  sufficient to meet the grievances of the complainant.

6.       Point No. 3:-

In the result, complaint is allowed in part.

1. Opposite parties are directed to replace the disputed cooker with a new one of the  similar description with fresh warranty for another  5 years to the complainant

2.  Opposite parties are jointly and severally also liable to pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees Thousand only) towards litigation cost to the complainant.

The order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order.    

    Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the  28th day of May, 2022. 

                                                Sd/-Smt. C.K.Lekhamma(Member)

                                            Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-

PW1                           -           T.J.Thomas (Complainant)

Ext.A1                       -           Warranty Card.          

Evidence of the opposite parties:-    

RW1                          -           Anzar.P.A(Proprietor 3rd OP)

Ext..B1                      -           Warranty card

Ext.B2                       -           Product Replacement Note

MO1                          -           Pressure Cooker)

 

 

//True Copy ///

To     

          Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

 

                                                                                                  Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Br/-

Compared by:-     

 

                                        

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. S. Santhosh Kumar]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Sholy P.R.]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.