Karnataka

Tumkur

CC/42/2019

Smt.SUVARNAMMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Proprietor ,Tumkur Trade Centre - Opp.Party(s)

D.Shivakumar

06 Nov 2020

ORDER

  Complaint filed on: 26-02-2019

                                                      Disposed on: 06-11-2020

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

 

CC.No.42/2019

 

DATED THIS THE 6^th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

 

PRESENT

 

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

Complainant: -

Smt.Suvarnamma

W/o Jayadevaiah.K.C,

Aged about 55 years,

R/at Kaggere village,

Bellavi hobli, Tumakuru taluk

 

(By Advocate Sri.B.Shivakumar)

 

V/s

Opposite party:-       

The Proprietor,

Tumakuru Trade Center,

MG Road, Tumakuru city

 

(By advocate Sri.Imtiaz Ahmed Khan)

 

ORDER

 

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

 

        This complaint has filed to direct the Opposite party-the Proprietor, Tumakuru Trade Center, MG Road, Tumakuru city (hereinafter called as OP) to return the repaired pressure cooker or in alternative to pass the order to deliver the new working pressure cooker. The complainant further asked to award compensation of Rs.50,000=00 towards mental harassment and torture and loss of dignity in the public at large and family along with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till its realization.

 

          2. It is the case of complainant that on 5-5-2018 she had purchased five liters pressure cooker from the OP vide cash bill No.362 by paying a sum of Rs.2,750=00. The OP while delivering the cooker he assured the complainant regarding warranty and guarantee. It is further case of complainant that when she started to use the pressure cooker within short span of time the pressure cooker was not working properly and pressure was not accumulating  in the cooker due to defect in the same. The complainant brought to the notice of OP and it assured to attend the defective cooker. Lastly the OP has failed to repair the defective cooker or replaced the new one. Thereafter, the complainant has got issued legal notice dated 14-1-2019 calling upon the OP to arrange for new pressure cooker but the OP despite the service of notice on 29-1-2019 did not comply the said notice nor returned the repaired cooker or replaced the new cooker. Hence, this complaint.

 

          3. The OP after the service of notice appeared through its learned counsel and filed written version contending that the OP is an agent of Prestige Company which is the manufacturer of pressure cookers. The OP admitted that the complainant had purchased two cookers of five liters for Rs.2,750=00. The OP is not the manufacturer but it is only agent of the said company. The OP has given warranty card to the complainant wherein it is mentioned that if there is any manufacturing defect the same has to be certified by Prestige Service Center situated at MG Road, Tumakuru and advised the complainant to approach the service center and get rectify her problem. The OP instead of approaching the service center came to OP shop and shouted and caused humiliation to the OP and its customers. Thereafter, the complainant has agreed to approach the Prestige Service Center at Tumakuru and took back her cooker. The complainant instead of approaching the service center has got issued an untenable legal notice and for that the OP has replied properly. On the above grounds the OP asked to dismiss the complaint with exemplary cost.

       

4. The complainant filed her affidavit evidence and produced the copy of legal notice, postal receipt and postal acknowledgement. On behalf of OP its Proprietor Sheir Mohammed Khan filed his affidavit evidence and produced five documents.

 

          5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant and OP and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves that the OP has sold the defective cookers?

2)      Whether the OP proves that the complaint is not maintainable for non-joinder of manufacturer of pressure cookers?

3)      Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?  

6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the affirmative 

Point No.2: In the affirmative  

 

Point No.3: As per final order for the below

 

REASONS

 

          7. Point No.1 to 3: The learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that the OP has sold the defective pressure cooker and it did not work properly within the period of one year from the date of purchase. As against this the learned counsel for the OP has urged that the OP is only an agent of the Prestige Company and Prestige Company is answerable for the defect in the cooker. The OP has not disputed the purchase of two Prestige Company cookers on 5-5-2018 by the complainant by paying Rs.2,750=00 including GST. The OP not only admitted in the written version but also produced the copy of cash bill dated 5-5-2018 for sale of two pressure cookers to the complainant. The OP has admitted issue of legal notice by the complainant dated 14-1-2019. Though the complainant has denied the reply given by the OP but the OP has produced reply dated 11-2-2019 at Sl.No.1 of the list of documents dated 3-9-2019 along with postal receipt. The OP has taken contention in the written version that the complainant has taken back the cooker stating that she would approach the Prestige Service Center at Tumakuru but instead of approaching the service center she has got issued legal notice.

 

          8. It is specific contention of the OP that it is an agent for sale of the Prestige Pressure Cookers but not the manufacturer. The OP has produced the copy of five years warranty card given to the complainant of pressure cooker which is at Sl.No.4 of the list of documents dated 3-9-2019. It is sated in the warranty card of Prestige Company that Prestige Popular is warranted by the manufacture for five years from the date of purchase and will, during this period, be replaced or repaired free of charge. If there is any defect due to faulty material or workmanship. Warranty card itself indicates that the company has undertaken to attend the repair at free of charge or replace the new one if there is any defect due to faulty material or workmanship. The complainant would have approached the service center situated at Tumakuru to get repaired or replacement of defective pressure cookers. The complainant instead of approaching the Prestige Service Center at Tumakuru has filed this complaint which is against the warranty card. The complainant has not denied the contents of warranty card issued by the Prestige Company.

 

9. The second contention of the OP is that manufacturer of pressure cooker is necessary party and Prestige Company is answerable for replacement or to attend the repair of defective cooker. The OP is not liable for the same as it is working as agent for the said company. In Bhagwan Singh Shekhwat –vs- R.K.Photostate and Communication and ors – II (2017) CPJ 462 (NC) New Delhi wherein it is held that without impleading manufacturer as a party the complaint is not maintainable. Further in Abhinandan –vs- Ajit Kumar Verma and ors- I (2008) CPJ 336 (NC) New Delhi wherein relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court – Hindustan Motors Ltd and ors –vs- Shivakumar and Anr.(2000) 10 SCC 654 held that petitioner/dealer cannot be held liable for the manufacturing defect in the VCP. The Manufacturer is held liable. In the case on hand also the complainant has not impleaded the manufacturer of Prestige pressure cooker as such the complaint is not maintainable. The OP in the written version as well as affidavit evidence has taken specific contention that the manufacturer i.e. Prestige Company is answerable for defective pressure cooker as it is only an agent for sale. Though the OP has taken specific contention in the written version and affidavit evidence the complainant has failed to implead the manufacturer of Prestige Pressure Cooker as such the complaint is not maintainable. For the above reasons, we proceed to pass the following;

 

ORDER

 

 

The complaint filed by Smt.Suvarnamma w/o Jayadevaiah.K.C is dismissed without cost.

 

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite party at free of cost.

 

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 6^th day of November, 2020).