Hisar District Commission Orders Havells To Refund And Compensate For Failure To Repair Defective Air Oven

Brief Facts:

Kapil Mittal (“Complainant”) purchased a Havells Air Oven DIGI, 1500W, from M/s. Smart Deals Hisar (“Seller”). The purchase was made for a total of Rs. 9,000, and the product came with a two-year warranty. After following the user manual's instructions diligently, the product started experiencing issues just one month after the purchase. Specifically, the oven emitted a burning smell, and it ceased to function properly for baking food items.

The Complainant took action by lodging a complaint with Havells India Limited (“Havells”), the manufacturer, through a telephonic call to their customer care on March 18, 2021. However, despite his numerous attempts to seek resolution by contacting their customer care, none of Havells' representatives visited his residence to address the problem. The Complainant reported having made 13 telephonic complaints, but Havells failed to provide any service to address these complaints. Furthermore, a representative of Havells did visit the Complainant’s premises but only took photographs of the products without providing a solution. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hisar (“District Commission”).

The Complainant emphasized that the Air Oven he purchased was well within the warranty period, and according to the terms of the warranty, Havells was obligated to repair, rectify, or replace the product. He claimed that there was a deficiency in service on the part of Havells and requested that they be directed to replace the defective product with a new one.

Havells, in its written response, sought leave to check the product once again and provide a report to the Commission. They were willing to repair or replace the product if any issue was found upon inspection. They maintained that 11 of the complainant's calls were canceled due to a lack of appointment for a visit, and two calls attended by a technician found no issue with the product. Havells requested that the Commission consider a third-party inspection to determine the product's condition.

Observations by the Commission:

The District Commission rejected the contentions of Havells and observed that it had not furnished substantial evidence to substantiate their claims. Most notably, it failed to provide compelling documentation or records of their interactions with the complainant.

Consequently, the District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant and directed Havells to either replace the defective Havells Air Oven DIGI with a new product of the same make or a higher make or refund the purchase amount of Rs. 9,000 to the complainant. In addition to the product replacement or refund, Havells was ordered to pay the complainant a sum of Rs. 4,000 as compensation.

Case: Kapil Mittal vs M/s. Havells India Limited

Case No.: CC/547/2021

Advocate for the Complainant: Complainant in person

Advocate for the Respondent: Sh. Harsh Jindal, Proxy Counsel for Sh. Rahul Sidher (for Respondent No.1) and Sh. Ajay Lohan (for Respondent No. 2)

Click Here To Read/DownloadOrder