Haryana

Ambala

CC/215/2021

Naresh Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

TTK Prestige ltd - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Aug 2022

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.         :     215 of 2021

                                                          Date of Institution           :     23.07.2021

                                                          Date of decision     :     01.08.2022.

         

Naresh Sharma Advocate, Age 29, son of Sh. Guna Nand Sharma, Resident of House No.157, Asa Singh Garden, Phase-II, Ambala City.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1.TTK Prestige Ltd. 11th Floor, Brigade Towers, 135, Brigade Road, Bangalore-560025.

2. Prestige Authorized Service Center, # 75,  Laxmi Nagar, Jandli, Ambala- 134003.

 

                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

                   Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

Present:       Complainant in person.

                      Sh. Neeraj Kumar, Authorized Representative for OP No.1

                       Sh.Happy, Proprietor of OP No.2 in person.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

1. ) To pay Rs.41,799/-, i.e. Rs.6,000/- for damage of chullah (Surya) 4 burner, Rs.10,799/- for damage of chimney, Rs.8,000/- for damage of kitchen, Rs.2,000/- for damage of utensils, Rs.15,000/- for damage of kitchen decoration and Rs.9,00/- for the damage of the Cooker, to the complainant.

(ii), To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

iii) To pay Rs.2,50,000/- for any mis-happening, which could have caused any injury to the human life.

iv) To pay Rs.22,000/-, as litigation costs.

v) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Commission may deem fit and proper as per the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, may also be granted in favour of the complainant.

 

2.             Brief facts of the case are that a cooker was gifted by one Subham Badoni to the complainant, which had been purchased from the OPs vide bill no.111423 dated 11.3.2017 for an amount of Rs.900.98, which carried a warranty of 5 years.  Complainant started using the said cooker without any interruption. On 30.5.2021 at about 2.00 PM complainant put the said cooker on the gas stove to cook food and thereafter, went to another room. Suddenly the said cooker blasted, resultantly, gas chullah 4 burner of Rs.6000/-, chimney of Rs.10799/-, down sealing of kitchen worth Rs.8000/- and utensils of Rs.2000/- including kitchen decoration worth Rs.15000/- got burnt/damaged. The complainant reported the matter to the official of the OPs on the same day. However, it was only on 5.6.2021, one official of the OPs, namely Amit visited the premises of the complainant. When the complainant requested him to indemnify him then he told that the company shall compensate him. Thereafter, on 15.06.2021 the complainant approached the OPs, they refused to compensate him. When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed then he served a legal notice dated 16.06.2021 to the OPs but to no avail. By not paying compensation towards the damage/loss caused to the complainant due to blast of cooker, during warranty period, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1, appeared and filed written version, raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc. On merits, it has been stated that M/s. TTK Prestige Limited, is carrying on the business of manufacturing, marketing and sale of "Prestige" range of Kitchen Home Appliances, including pressure cooker, pans, cookware, induction Cook Top, Gas Stoves, Ovens, Mixer Grinders, etc., and has been in trade for over 5 decades and in the process has developed enormous goodwill and confidence for its superior quality product and after sales service among various sections of society. There was no manufacturing defect in the Prestige Nakshatra Pressure Cooker Handi 3 Litres capacity ("Pressure Handi") in question. The cooker in question was purchased on 11.03.2017 and admittedly the complainant had registered complaint on 30.05.2021 and as such, this goes on to establish that, it had worked effectively and efficiently for more than 4 years. On receipt of the complaint from the complainant, the service technician of OP No.1 visited the residence of the complainant on 05.06.2021 and inspected the cooker. The said Service Technician had observed that the cooker was not maintained properly, in accordance with the User Manual's instructions, as under:-

1. The Weight Valve (Pressure Regulating device) was clogged (due to excess filling/froth).
2. The Metallic Safety Plug [(MSP) (a safety component, which works in case of excess pressure and failure of the primary safety device)] is tampered with, as Washer is being used, whereas, OP No.1, do not use Washer, instead use Silicon O Ring.
3. The Metallic Safety Plug-MSP is very old and has not been duly replaced. "It is expressly stated in User Manual, that the Metallic Safety Plug -MSP is to be replaced every year".

 

4.                 In reply dated 14.07.2021 to the Legal Notice dated 16.06.2021, the answering OP clearly explained about the manner of dealing with the cooker. It is settled principle of law that, the ‘Terms of Warranty’ constitutes the binding contract between the Consumer and the Manufacturer. In view of the same, the liability of OP No.1 is duly governed by the terms of the Warranty. As per the User Manual, in the section Important Safeguards, under Clause 9, the complainant was required to check at all times that the vent tube (pressure release devices) is clear and not clogged before use. Under Clause 19, a fused safety plug (MSP) must be replaced by a genuine safety plug. In Clause 12, it is mentioned that the Pressure Handi should be filled with only half (1/2) it's quantity when cooking food that expands, such as Rajma which was being cooked in the instant case. In the instant case, the complainant had completely ignored the instructions, as stated above, while using the cooker. Complainant has also tampered with the MSP of the cooker with use of Washer instead of Silicon O Ring and has used the Washer of some other company which amounts to breach of condition of Warranty. Clause 9, of the Do's and Don'ts Section of the Manual clearly states that the MSP is to be replaced every year, which the complainant has failed to do. Rest of the averments of the complaint were denied by the answering OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

5.       Upon notice, OP No.2, appeared and filed written version, raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and bad for mis-joinder of necessary party etc. On merits, it has been stated OP No.2 is not at all concerned with the present complaint in any manner, as he never dealt with the article concerned. As per the complaint itself the cooker was purchased on 11.03.2017 and admittedly the complainant had registered this complaint on 20.05.2021 which goes to establish that the cooker worked effectively and efficiently for more than 4 years, which proved that there is no manufacturing defect. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OP and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint.

6.       Complainant tendered his own affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-14 and closed the evidence of the complainant. On the other hand, Sh.Neeraj Kumar, Authorized Representative of OP No.1 tendered his own affidavit as Annexure OP-1/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1.  Shri Happy, Proprietor of OP No.2 tendered his own affidavit as Annexure OP-2/A and closed the evidence on his behalf.

7.       We have heard the complainant, Authorized Representative of OP No.1 and proprietor of OP No.2 and carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the complainant and the authorised representative of OP No.1.

8.       The complainant has submitted that it was only on account of the reason that the cooker in question suffered from inherent manufacturing defect, that is why, it blasted during the warranty period, resultantly, his household goods got burnt/damaged, as such the OPs are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him.  

9.       On the contrary, the authorized representative for the OPs No.1 and 2 submitted that since the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent evidence in the shape of expert report or any other document to prove that the said cooker suffered from any manufacturing defect. Moreso, complainant tampered the Metallic Safety Plug [(MSP) (a safety component, which works in case of excess pressure and failure of the primary safety device)] as it was found that a washer was being used, instead of Silicon O Ring provided by the OPs and also the MSP of the cooker was very old and has not been duly replaced by the complainant every year, as was required under the user manual, therefore, if any alleged defect arose in the said cooker resulting into blast thereof, the same cannot be attributable to the OPs.. 

10.     After hearing the complainant in person, Authorized Representative of OP No.1 and OP No.2 in person and going through the record of this case, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case, as he has neither moved any application under section 38 (2) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 before this Commission nor has placed on file any expert/lab report/opinion from which this Commission is convinced that the cooker in question blasted on account of some manufacturing defect therein. Mere photographs of the burnt cooker and other products/goods in the premises of the complainant are not sufficient to opine the exact reason of blast in the said cooker.  Furthermore, in the present case, the complainant has produced, in support of his allegation of manufacturing defect in the said cooker, his own affidavit. This affidavit is no substitute for an expert opinion, to hold that the said cooker was indeed suffering from some manufacturing defect.

11.     On the other hand, it is the definite case of the OPs that blast took place in the cooker in question because of the reason that the Weight Valve (Pressure Regulating device) was clogged (due to excess filling/froth); the Metallic Safety Plug [(MSP) (a safety component, which works in case of excess pressure and failure of the primary safety device)] is tampered with, as Washer is being used, instead of using Silicon O Ring; and also the  MSP was very old and was not duly replaced every year, as opined by the Technical Expert appointed by the OPs. Thus, when the OPs have taken this specific plea, then it was the duty of the complainant to rebut the same by filing the expert opinion or lab report or to move an application before this Commission to get inspection of the cooker by any expert but he failed to do so. Even, the complainant has not placed on file any independent cogent evidence to rebut the version of OP No.1 and 2.  It is significant to mention here that in reply to the legal notice sent by the complainant on 16.06.2021, the OPs had replied the same vide letter dated 14.07.2021, wherein the OPs took the same stand, as has been taken in their written version i.e. the Weight Valve (Pressure Regulating device) was clogged (due to excess filling/froth); the Metallic Safety Plug [(MSP) (a safety component, which works in case of excess pressure and failure of the primary safety device)] was tampered with, as Washer is being used, instead of Silicon O Ring; and also the  MSP was very old and was not duly replaced every year. However, to rebut the stand of the OPs, no cogent evidence has been placed on record by the complainant. In our considered opinion, when a manufacturing defect is alleged in any good/product, the onus of proof has to be on the complainant, which in the present case is find missing.  In 2017 (3) CPR 24 (NC) [Baljit Kaur Vs Divine Motors and Anr.] the Hon'ble National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition filed by the petitioner-Baljit Kaur by holding as under:-

 

"….While it is true that this has no relation with any manufacturing defect, it is also true that the manufacturing defect as alleged has not been proved before the fora below, by reference to any expert report in this regard. When a manufacturing defect is alleged, the onus of proof has to be on the complainant. Admittedly, the petitioner/complainant had produced, in support of her allegation of manufacturing defect, her own affidavit alongwith affidavit of 7-8 more witnesses. The District Forum correctly held - and the state commission concurred - that that these affidavits are no substitute for an expert opinion, to hold that the vehicle was indeed suffering from some manufacturing defect (s)..."

12.     In the instant case also, as stated above, when OPs No.1 and 2 came with a plea that there was no manufacturing defect in the cooker in question and complainant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of use of the said cooker, as per its manual, the OPs cannot be held deficient in providing service, irrespective of the fact that the cooker in question was within the warranty period, when it blasted.

13.     In view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, it is held that because the complainant has failed to prove his case, therefore, no relief can be given to him. Resultantly, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 01.08.2022.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)        (Ruby Sharma)                   (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                             Member                            President