Haryana

StateCommission

A/439/2022

NARESH SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

TTK PRESTIGE LTD. AND ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

SHANTANU BANSAL

10 Mar 2023

ORDER

  Date of Instituion:02.09.2022

                Date of final hearing:10.03.2023

                                                 Date of pronouncement:10.03.2023

 

First Appeal No.439 of 2022

 

IN THE MATTER OF

 

Naresh Sharma aged about 29 years, son of sh. Guna Nand Sharma, R/o House No.157, ASA Singh Garden, Phase-II, Ambala City. Mobile No.9802846266

                                                                                            .….Appellant

Through counsel Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate

 

Versus

 

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

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

                                                                                       ….Respondents

 

CORAM:   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate for the appellant.

                  

O R D E R

Per: Manjula, Member:

 

          The brief facts giving rise for disposal of the present appeal are that a cooker was gifted by one Subham Badoni to the complainant, which was purchased from Ops on 11.03.2017 for an amount of Rs.900.98p having warranty of 5 years. On 30.05.2021, the said cooker suddenly blasted during cooking, resultantly, gas chullah 4 burner costing Rs.6000/-, chimney costing Rs.10,799/-, down sealing of kitchen worth Rs.8,000/- etc got burnt/damaged. The complainant approached the Ops on same day. One official of Ops visited the premises of complainant  and told him that the company shall compensate him. Thereafter, the complainant again approached the Ops but they refused to compensate him. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice to Ops on 16.06.2021 but to no avail. Hence, the complaint.

2.      Upon notice, both the Ops appeared and filed their written version separately before the District Commission.

3.      OP No.1 submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the Prestige Nakshatra Pressure Cooker Handi of 3 Litres capacity. The cooker in question was purchased on 11.03.2017 and the complainant had registered the complaint on 30.05.2021 and as such, it goes without saying that the said cooker had worked effectively and efficiently for more than 4 years. On receipt of complaint, the service technician of OP No.1 visited the residence of complainant and inspected the cooker and observed that the cooker was not maintained properly in accordance with the instructions. The Weight Valve (Pressure Regulating device) was clogged (due to excess filling), Metalic Safety Plug (MSP) was tampered with, as washer was used instead of Silicon O Ring. The MSP was very old whereas it was expressly stated in the User Manual that the “MSP was to be replaced every year”. It is further submitted that in reply dated 14.07.2021 to the legal notice dated 16.06.2021, OP No.1 clearly explained about manner of dealing with the cooker. As per User Manual, the complainant was required to check at all times that the vent tube (pressure release devices) is clean and not clogged before use. In Clause 12, it is also mentioned that Pressure Handi should be filled with half of it’s quantity when cooking food, as it  expands.  Rajma was being cooked in the instant case. Complainant ignored all the instructions, as stated above. The complainant has also tampered with the MSP of the cooker with the 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. Rest of averments of the complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.      OP No.2 submitted that he is not at all concerned with the present complaint in any manner, as he never dealt with the article concerned. The complainant admitted that the cooker was purchased on 11.03.2017 and the complaint was registered on 20.05.2021, which goes to establish that the cooker worked effectively and efficiently for more than 4 years, which proved beyond doubt that there was no manufacturing defect in the said cooker. Rest of allegations made in the complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5.      After hearing both the parties, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ambala dismissed the complaint against the OPs vide its order dated 01.08.2022.

6.      Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, Ambala, complainant-appellant has preferred this appeal before the State Commission.

7.      The arguments have been advanced by Mr. Shantanu Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. With his kind assistance the entire appeal has been properly perused and examined.                             

8.       The complainant has submitted that it was only on account of manufacturing defect in cooker that it blasted during the warranty period and as a result, the household goods got burnt/damaged, as such the Ops are liable to compensate him. On the contrary, the Ops submitted that since the complainant has failed to place on record any cogent/technical evidence in the shape of expert report or any other document to prove that the said cooker suffered from any manufacturing defect. The complainant tampered the Metalic Safety Plug as it was found that a washer was being used instead of Silicon O Ring and also the MSP was very old and not being replaced by the complainant every year.

9.      Keeping in view the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove his case, as he has not placed on record any expert/lab report from which, it could be concluded/gathered that the cooker in question blasted on account of some manufacturing defect. The photographs of burnt cooker and other goods in the premises of complainant are not sufficient to opine the exact reason of blast in the said cooker. On the other hand, it is the case of Ops that blast took place in the cooker in question because the Weight Valve (Pressure Regulating device) was clogged (due to excess filling); the Metalic Safety Plug (a safety component, which works in case of excess pressure and failure of primary safety device) is tampered with as Washer is being used instead of Silicon O Ring and the MSP was very old and was not replaced every year, as opined by the Technical Expert appointed by the Ops. Thus, when the Ops had taken this specific plea, then it was the duty of complainant to rebut the same by filing the expert opinion or lab report of inspection of the cooker by an expert but he failed to do so. Complainant has also failed to place on record any cogent evidence to rebut the version of Ops.  

10.    The learned District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant. The State Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Commission. Hence, the appeal being devoid of merits, stands dismissed in liminie.

11.    Application(s) pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid Order.

12.    A copy of this order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this order.

                                                                                     

Pronounced On: 10.03.2023       

 

           

                                                                                                            (Manjula)

                                                                                       Member

 

                                                           

 

M.S.