HYDERABAD: A pressure cooker bought for Rs 1,755 was supposed to make everyday cooking easier. Instead, a woman in Visakhapatnam found that rice remained partially uncooked even after three to four whistles. When the same problem persisted while preparing dal the following day, she approached the seller for help. The dispute eventually landed before a consumer commission, which ordered the store, dealer and manufacturer to pay her Rs 16,755.The Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ruled that the woman was entitled to a refund of the product’s cost, along with compensation and litigation expenses, after finding deficiencies in the services provided by the three parties.The commission, presided over by Gudla Tanuja, with members Varri Krishna Murthy and Rahimunnisa Begum, passed the order on October 31. The woman had purchased a four-litre deep-pan pressure cooker from a store for Rs 1,755, paying through UPI. She said she first noticed the problem when she used it to cook rice on the day of purchase. Despite allowing the cooker to function for the prescribed three to four whistles, the rice was only partially cooked.An attempt to prepare dal the next day yielded the same result, according to her complaint. She then contacted the store, alleging that its staff responded insensitively and asked her to approach the company’s service centre. However, citing her age and physical limitations, she said she could not visit the centre. The store subsequently collected the cooker from her and issued a service bill for its repair. But the woman maintained that she wanted a replacement rather than a repair. The company later informed her that it had instructed the dealer to replace the appliance, but the dealer had not acted on the instruction, the commission noted.The store and the dealer maintained that the cooker had been examined by service personnel, who had even shared a video demonstrating that it was working properly. Their lawyers told the commission that the woman had refused an offer to accompany her to the service centre for a demonstration. They also argued that she had insisted on a replacement despite the appliance being in working condition and was seeking an excessive amount as compensation.The store and dealer further contended that she had not submitted an expert opinion or technical report to establish a manufacturing defect. They also accused her of threatening litigation and claiming to have connections with consumer commission personnel. The manufacturer, meanwhile, argued that its warranty obligations were limited to repairing or replacing products with inherent manufacturing defects. It maintained that the cooker had undergone operational testing and was found to be functioning properly.The commission observed that the store, dealer and manufacturer had failed to produce the warranty terms before it. It also questioned their reliance on a proposed replacement as a goodwill gesture, asking why such an offer would have been made if the appliance had no problem. The bench held that the woman was entitled to a refund as a consumer exercising her legal rights under the Consumer Protection Act, and not merely because the company was willing to offer a goodwill replacement.It also took exception to the allegations that she had used purported connections within the commission to threaten the store and dealer. Describing the remarks as defamatory, the commission said they amounted to an attempt to tarnish the institution’s image and included derogatory comments about the complainant.The commission directed the store, dealer and manufacturer to refund the Rs 1,755 paid for the cooker, pay Rs 12,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and bear Rs 3,000 towards litigation costs. Separately, the store and dealer were directed to pay a penalty of Rs 21,000 to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority in Amaravati for making what the commission described as baseless allegations about its functioning.
