Ludhiana | Crockery store asked to replace pressure cooker after 3 years of use

Sunil Kapoor of Civil Lines, Ludhiana, had submitted a complaint against M/s AN Crockery House, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, through its manager (referred to as opposite party 1 or OP 1). He alleged that despite using a wooden spatula while cooking, the inside base of the cooker he purchased started corroding and thus, it was made up of a defective material.

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed a crockery store to replace a pressure cooker that had five-year warranty and eroded after three years of purchase.

On June 19, 2018, the Ludhiana-based complainant visited the crockery store for the delivery of the replaced cooker on which OP1 told that the product would be replaced on a payment of ₹500 as replacement charges (HT FILE)

Sunil Kapoor of Civil Lines, Ludhiana, had submitted a complaint against M/s AN Crockery House, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana, through its manager (referred to as opposite party 1 or OP 1) and M/s TTK Prestige Limited, Bangalore, through its chairperson (referred to as OP 2).

The complaint

Kapoor said on January 31, 2015, he had purchased a Prestige Nakshatra Hard Anodized 3-litre pressure handi (cooker) from OP1 for ₹1,350. It carried a warranty of five years from January 31, 2015 to January 31, 2020.

He alleged that despite using a wooden spatula while cooking, the inside base of the cooker started corroding and thus, it was made up of a defective material.

OP1 took into possession the defective pressure cooker on May 11, 2018 for replacement.

On June 19, 2018, the complainant visited OP1 for the delivery of the replaced cooker on which OP1 told that the product would be replaced on a payment of ₹500 as replacement charges. Since the replacement of the product was within warranty period, OP1 was supposed to replace the product without any charges.

As a result, the complainant sent an email dated June 20, 2018 to the customer care id of the OPs. The complainant kept visiting the showroom of OP1, but he was repeatedly told that the product had not come.

Alleging deficiency of service, the complainant requested the commission to order a refund of ₹1.350, along with interest of 2% above the bank rate and ₹20,000 compensation.

Resisting the complaint, in a joint statement, opposite parties contended that there was no manufacturing defect in the pressure cooker purchased by the complainant. “The cooker was used by the complainant without any problem for about three years and four months. Therefore, there could not be any manufacturing defect in the cooker. Even from the photographs of the cooker, the spots on the inner side do not appear to be due to any manufacturing defect and, therefore, the service technician turned down the replacement request of the complainant,” submitted the crockery vendor.

The order

Meanwhile, the commission in its order observed that the initial onus was on the complainant to prove his case and therefore, the factum of some inherent manufacturing defect did not stand proved on record.

“Even otherwise, the product was admittedly used for more than three years by the complainant without any complaint. The complaint is partly allowed with a direction to OPs to replace the product with a new one within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, there would be no order as to costs,” the commission stated.