Judgment:
Smt. M. Shreesha, Incharge President
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.129/2012 on the file of District Forum, Kadapa YSR District, OP 1 preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant purchased one Prestige Rice cooker from OP 2 shop on 19-10-2012 for Rs.2,400/- and right since its purchase, she observed that while cooking the rice, the rice was getting roasted/browned and the same was informed to OP 2 who tried to prepare the rice in his shop but the same problem was noticed and therefore OP 2 informed the complainant to contact OP1. OP 1 replaced the thermostat on 05-12-2012 but again the problem persisted and the complainant approached OP 1 who informed her to approach OP 2 who once again prepared the rice in his shop and the same problem arose. When there was no response from the opposite parties, the complainant got issued a notice to the OPs on 21-12-2012 for which OP 2 replied that they are only dealers and are not responsible for any defects. Vexed with their attitude the complainant approached the Forum seeking directions to the OPs to pay Rs.2,400/- towards the cost of the cooker or replace with a new cooker together with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and other costs.
OP 1 filed written version stating that it is carrying on the business of manufacturing and marketing of Prestige range of pressure cookers, pans, cookware, gas stove among other items. The complainant approached OP 2 in the month of December, 2012 who used the electric rice cooker without any problem from 19-10-2012 until December, 2012 and the complainant approached OP 2 once in the month of December, 2012 and therefore the allegation that OP 2 repaired the product on 3 occasions is baseless. OP 1 submits that the complainant approached OP 2 in the month of December, 2012 and requested for repair of the electric rice cooker and OP2 on receipt of the complaint informed OP 1 and OP1 technician inspected and observed that the complainant was not placing the trivet at the bottom of the cooking pan and the magnetic thermostat was damaged and hence was not functioning. The service technician replaced the magnetic thermostat free of charge vide job sheet No.12815 dated 5-12-2012 and relied on clause 3 of page 7 of the manual, how to use your Prestige Delight Rice Cooker and stated that the use of trivet avoids direct contact of heat to the bottom of the container.
O.P.1 described the use of the magnetic thermostat stating that it is a component which senses the temperature inside the electric rice cooker, to ensure that the inside temperature is maintained near a desired level 100 degrees, for effecting cooking. Once the desired level of temperature is reached 100 degrees, it cuts off the cooking mode and switches to warm mode, to keep the temperature at the safer level 65 degrees to keep the cooked food warm for specified time. Further R1 stated that the damage to Magnetic thermostat was because of the negligent use of the complainant. Page-7, clause 4 under heading âHow to use your Prestige Delight Rice Cooker in user manual that âwife off any food particles/dust on the outer surface thermostat and heater, otherwise, the appliance may get damagedâ. In page 3, clause 13 under heading âimportant safeguards, states that âthere should be no water/dust/food particles, between the cooking pan and the heating element. If there are such things cooking results may be affected and heating components may get damaged as well. O.P.1 further submitted that the complainant failed to comply and follow the above mentioned instructions and they after replacing the magnetic thermostat and placing trivet, checked the cooker by cooking rice and it was found with no defect and hence submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their behalf.
OP 2 was called absent and was set exparte.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A5 and B1 and B2 allowed the complaint directing OPs 1 and 2 to jointly and severally Rs.2,400/- towards the cost of the rice cooker, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.500/- towards auto charges and Rs.1500/- towards costs and Rs.5,600/- for the negligent attitude of OPs. 1 and 2 to be paid within 45 days.
Aggrieved by the said order, OP 1 preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant/OP 1 contended that the complainant was not placing the trivet inside the cooking pan which was the cause for the browning of the rice and the magnetic thermostat was also damaged which was replaced free of charge vide job sheet No. 12815 on 05-12-2005. The complainant did not observe care and caution to comply with clause 4 of page 7 and clause 13 of page 3 of the User Manual which requires the user to keep the outer surface of thermostat, free of food particles, dust and water which could avoid damage to the thermostat. He further contended that the District Forum awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,600/- towards negligent attitude which is excessive.
The complainant, Party in person was present and also filed written arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant/OP has fairly agreed to replace the cooker with a new one taking back the old cooker but submitted that the compensation awarded is excessive and amount of Rs.5,600/- awarded towards negligent attitude be set aside. As the appellant has already agreed to replace the cooker, the main point that falls for consideration is whether the amount of compensation and costs awarded by the District Forum is justified? It is an admitted fact that the cost of the cooker is Rs.2,400/- which is being replaced and the party in person has accepted for the replacement. When the District Forum has already awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation once again awarding a sum of Rs.5,600/- on the ground of negligent attitude of the OPs is unjustified as it amounts to awarding damages twice over and therefore this amount of Rs.5,600/- is set aside as already an amount of Rs.5,000/- was awarded towards damages and Rs.2,000/- towards costs. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that this amount of Rs.5,000/- be set aside as the cooker is being replaced however, we are of the considered view that the inconvenience suffered by the complainant cannot be undermined and admittedly the magnetic thermostat was replaced and she did suffer as the rice was being browned and she was made to run from pillar to post for which we are of the considered view that Rs.2,500/- as compensation ( the cost of the cooker being Rs.2400/-) is justified while confirming the costs of Rs.1500/- plus Rs.500/- =Rs.2,000/- awarded by the District Forum.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is modified directing the appellant to immediately replace the old cooker with a new one and pay compensation of Rs.2,500/- and costs of Rs.2,000/- within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.