The district’s Consumer Dispute Redress Board ordered a dishware store to replace a pressure cooker that had a five-year warranty and eroded after three years of purchase.
Sunil Kapoor of Civil Lines, Ludhiana had filed a complaint against M/s AN Crockery House, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, through its manager (known as Opposing Party 1 or OP 1) and M/s TTK Prestige Limited, Bangalore , through its president (called OP 2).
The complaint
Kapoor said that on January 31, 2015, he purchased a hard anodized 3 liter Prestige Nakshatra pressure cooker (pressure cooker) from OP1 for ₹1,350. It was covered by a five-year warranty from January 31, 2015 to January 31, 2020.
He alleged that despite using a wooden spatula while cooking, the interior base of the cooker began to corrode and was therefore made of faulty material.
OP1 took possession of the defective pressure cooker on May 11, 2018 for replacement.
On June 19, 2018, the complainant went to OP1 for the delivery of the replaced cooker. OP1 indicated that the product would be replaced upon payment of ₹500 as a replacement fee. Since the product replacement was within the warranty period, OP1 was supposed to replace the product without any charge.
As a result, the Complainant sent an email dated June 20, 2018 to the POs Customer Service ID. The Complainant continued to visit the OP1 showroom, but was repeatedly told that the product did not come.
Alleging a lack of service, the complainant asked the commission to order the reimbursement of ₹1,350, with 2% interest above the bank rate and ₹20,000 allowances.
Resisting the complaint, in a joint statement, the opposing parties argued that there were no manufacturing defects in the pressure cooker purchased by the plaintiff. “The cooker was used by the complainant without any problems for approximately three years and four months. Therefore, there could be no manufacturing defects in the cooker. Even from the photographs of the cooker, the stains on the inside face do not appear to be due to a manufacturing defect and therefore the service technician denied the complainant’s replacement request,” said the seller of dishes.
order
Meanwhile, the board, in its order, observed that the onus was initially on the plaintiff to prove its case and therefore the factum of an inherent manufacturing defect had not been proven on the record.
“Even otherwise, the product has admittedly been used for more than three years by the complainant without any complaints. The claim is partly allowed with an instruction to OPs to replace the product with a new one within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order copy. Given the particular circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs,” the commission said.
