w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n

Brijesh Negi Proprietor, Health Care Appliances & Another v/s Paripurnanand Raturi

    First Appeal No. 332 of 2010
    Decided On, 20 April 2012
    At, Uttarakhand State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Dehradun
    By, MEMBER
    For the Appellants: Nirdesh Khandelwal, Learned Counsel. For the Respondent: William Akbar Chand, Learned Counsel.

Judgment Text
C.C. Pant, Member:

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Dehradun, partly allowing the consumer complaint No. 172 of 2009 and directing the opposite parties – appellants to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 31,500/- within 30 days from the date of the order. The District Forum has also clarified in its order that the complainant would return the gas stove and the chimneys to the opposite parties after the said amount is deposited with the District Forum by the opposite parties and the said amount would be disbursed in favour of the complainant thereafter.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the complainant – Sh. Paripurnanand Raturi had purchased two chimneys and one gas stove with built-in hob from Sh. Brijesh Negi, Propretior, Health Care Appliances, Dehradun – opposite party No. 1. These appliances were manufactured by Sunflame Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad – opposite party No. 2. After the installation of these appliances in the month of April 2009, the complainant could know that the gas stove with built-in hob was a defective one as the flame used to get extinguished automatically after a few minutes of ignition and, thus, cooking became a problem. On making a complaint to the seller, mechanic was sent, but he could not rectify the defect. The problem persisted continuously and the opposite parties could not provide any solution. The complainant asked the opposite parties to take back the appliances and to refund the amount paid by him, but they refused for the same. The opposite party No. 1 agreed only to replace the gas stove with another one, to which the complainant did not agree, because he had doubts in the quality of these products. Upon this, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Dehradun, which, after an appreciation of the facts of the case, partly allowed the same vide impugned order dated 21.09.2010 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties have filed this appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appellants have not made any deficiency in service. According to him, as and when a complaint was received, the mechanic was sent to the complainant’s house to rectify the problem. Even then, the appellants are ready to replace the gas stove with built-in hob with a new one if the complainant is not satisfied with the performance of the said product. But the complainant has not indicated any problem or defect in the chimneys. The District Forum, without considering these facts, has passed a most unjust order by directing the appellants to take back the gas stove as well as the chimneys, which have no defects and to refund a sum of Rs. 31,500/- to the complainant. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the complainant has not paid the full amount of the invoice and has paid only a sum of Rs. 25,500/-. Thus, the District Forum has also made an error by directing the appellants to pay the amount which the complainant has not paid.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent – complainant reiterated the facts of the case and pleaded in support of the impugned order.

6. We considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is beyond any doubt that the gas stove with built-in hob had some defect and was not working properly. That is why the appellants are also ready to replace it with a new one. The main issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the District Forum was justified in directing the appellants to take back the gas stove in question as well as the chimneys and to refund a sum of Rs. 31,500/- to the complainant.

7. Our answer to the above question is in affirmative because it is a matter of consumer’s satisfaction and his faith in the appellants’ products. As the record reveals, the complainant had got a new house constructed for his family and had purchased the goods in question for his kitchen. A kitchen is the most important part of the house. We can imagine the happiness of the family at that moment when the members of the family would have entered into the new house, but the happiness got a break when a problem arose in cooking due to a defective gas stove supplied by the appellants. This shows that the appellants were interested only in the sale of their products and they had nothing to do with the sentiments of the family. This also shows that the quality control and testing system of the appellants is very weak. They should had taken every care before supplying the goods, and that too to a customer who was going to install them in his newly constructed house, that the products were working perfectly and had no defects. This puts a question in the quality of the products of a company like Sunflame. It is true that the complainant has not indicated in clear words as to what was the defect in the chimneys, but if the gas stove was not working, how could he ensure that the chimneys were working perfectly. Moreover, once he had lost his faith in the quality of the products, it was natural to have apprehension that the chimneys would also give problems in future and if any defect surfaced up in future, he may have to struggle to get it rectified, replaced or seek legal remedy. Though the District Forum has not elaborated all these reasons, but the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum is most just and there cannot be a better and just decision in this matter keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, we endorse the view taken by the District Forum with regard to the directions given to the appellants for taking back all the items and to refund the amount paid by the complainant for these items. In this respect, we would further like to say that the items were purchased against a composite order for all these goods (Paper No. 30). The appellants have not indicated item-wise cost of the goods and instead has shown a total cost of Rs. 31,990/-. The invoice at Paper No. 48 also shows a total cost of Rs. 31,000/-. Thus, it is evident that an over-all discount was offered to the complainant. This very evidence is enough to falsify the averment made by the appellants that they had not offered any discount. The appellants have also failed to prove that the complainant had not paid an amount of Rs. 5,500/-. In the Order Form dated 13.06.2008, the appellants have shown Rs. 500/- having been received as advance. Paper No. 31 indicates that the appellants’ agent had received an amount of Rs. 5,000/- in cash and Rs. 15,000/- by cheque and after adjusting these amounts alongwith Rs. 500/- received as advance, the balance amount to be paid has been shown as Rs. 11,490/-. However, as per the invoice, the complainant has been billed for Rs. 31,000/- only instead of Rs. 31,990/-. Thus, the amount payable on the basis of Paper No. 31 is as under:

(i) Cost of chimneys and gas stove Rs. 31,000/-

(ii) Amount received by the agent and advance payment Rs. 5,500/-

(iii) Amount paid through cheque Rs. 15,000/- Balance Rs. 10,500/-

8. The appellants have accepted that an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was also paid. Thus, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 30,500/- and at the most, it can be said that the complainant had to pay the balance amount of Rs. 500/- against the said invoice. Therefore, the impugned order can be modified to this extent but we are in complete consonance with the views taken by the District Forum in respect of the goods to be taken back by the appellants and to refund the amount paid by the complainant for these goods because the order placed by the complainant for the supply of chimn

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
eys and gas stove with built-in hob appears to be composite in nature, as is evident from the Order Form at Paper No. 21. Thus, if one of the items is defective and the District Forum has directed the supplier to take back all the items, then such a direction cannot be said to be unjust. The order placed by the complainant being composite in nature, it involves adjustment of prices and over-all discount at the time of payment, which cannot be segregated for the purpose of awarding relief to the consumer. 9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 21.09.2010 passed by the District Forum is modified to the extent that the appellants shall pay an amount of Rs. 30,500/- to the respondent – complainant instead of Rs. 31,500/-, as directed by the District Forum. Rest of the impugned order is upheld. No order as to costs.