Case Law Details
Abhishek Gupta Vs Havells India Ltd. (Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru)
On May 8, 2024, the Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission delivered a significant ruling in the case of Abhishek Gupta vs. Havells India Limited. The case centered around a hair trimmer explosion that caused severe injuries to the complainant, Abhishek Gupta, raising crucial questions about product safety and consumer rights under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) 2019. This article delves into the facts of the case, the legal arguments presented, the issues considered, and the court’s judgment.
FACTS OF THE CASE
The complainant is a resident of Bangalore. The complainant purchased a Havells hair trimmer on date 08.07.2020 model no. GS6451. The trimmer was gift from his wife that is complainant number two. The complainant charged the product as per the manual as it was written to full charge the product before first use, then he used it after his use the complainant again the put the trimmer on charging, during the charging the complainant observed that the trimmer was blinking red light so to examine it the complainant picked up the trimmer while the charger was still connected, the trimmer was warm and suddenly it exploded due to it the hand of the complainant was severely injured
The opposing party is Havells which is FMEG that is fast moving electric goods company a major electric goods manufacturer. The trimmer GS6451 was launched in 2017 only after testing in Indian laboratories and abroad also. Further there was a user manual with several does and don’t that the consumer has to comply with while using the product.
The complainant then filed a complaint with Havells and Flipkart on 13.07.2020 from where he ordered the trimmer the complainant was followed up by the complainant on mail with Havells but when the complainant wasn’t satisfied with the response on mails then the complainant filed the complaint on 12.08.2020 under section 34 of The Consumer Protection Act at the Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Bengaluru with asking the relief as mentioned below:-
1. Payment of Rs 3,56,192 in total as including the cost of damage product, cost of medication, compensation on mental agony and his work loss.
2. To stop the sale of trimmer model GS6451 permanently and all other models using similar charging circuit or battery under section 39 (1) (h) of the CPA 2019.
3. And to also withdraw as the same products mentioned in point 2 under section 39 (1) (i) of CPA 2019.
Then opposition party that is Havells India Limited filed against this complain on 13.10.2020 stating that:-
1. Opposition party can only be held liable under section 84 of CPA when it can be proven that the manufacture has been negligent or fraudulent in making the express warranty of the product but that is not the case here.
2. Second there is no defect in the lithium-ion battery of the product that is trimmer, supported by lab test in DEKRA laboratory
3. Third point made was that the claims or relief asked by the complainant are highly inflated under the terms and conditions of purchase.
The complainant filled an I.A. that is Interlocutory Application under section 38 (8) read with section 39 (1) (i) of the CPA 2019. The Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission replied to with preliminary objections that were
1. The interim relief asked by the complainant is sought to be only permitted to be sought as a final relief under the act that is to restrain the opposite party from the sale of product and to withdraw the product from the market as well as similar models.
2. The second objection was that there was no strong prima facie that is there was no strong evidence or report stating that the issues was related to the battery of the trimmer that led to the explosion.
Then the opposing party filled a second I.A. stating the fact that the opposite party got properly inspected the product before release in the market and that the lithium-ion batteries they are using in their product are in compliance with the IEC standards.
Opposite party raised a new ground in this too that the special power of attorney produced by the complainant’s attorney holder, Mr. Kartikeya Khanna dated 12.08.2020 at Bangalore, is not duly stamped and there fore it cannot be relied upon as per section 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act. The document is inadmissible under the law therefore the complainant cannot rely upon the document.
ISSUES
The court came to the point that the major issues in this case were
1. Whether there was a manufacturing defect in the product?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sort?
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING
In order to avoid the repetition of facts the court gave reasoning together for both the points. In the revision petition filed by the complainant the Hon’ble state commission held that there is no requirement of any laboratory test as basing on the doctrine of res-Ipsa-loquitur which means “the thing speaks for itself”. The court said that since it could be seen by examining the product with bare eyes and on inspecting it, it was found that the product cannot be further used so there is no need to examine the product.
It is further contention of the learned council the complainant has used the product as per the instructions given in the user manual, it is not the case of opposite party that because of mishandling the product exploded. It appears that the product was damaged with caused injury in the palm of the complainant.
And according to the fact the complainant was simply charging the trimmer, the red light started blinking and the product got extremely hot before the complainant could understand anything the product exploded in his hand. It is presumptuous that no one could file a case for a product amount of Rs 2,149, further the complainant had no ill intention against the opposite party. Therefore, the court felt that there was manufacturing defect in the product on the part of opposite party so opposite party will be held liable under chapter of the CPA Act 2019.
The court provided the complainant relief against the damages he claimed for the cost of product Rs 2,149 , the cost of medication Rs 1,624. Further the complainant has also asked for damaged against the loss of work, extra support at home and extra expenses at the hospital for which the court that there is no supporting evidence to prove it. But the court further provided the complainant additional 10,000 Rs for over all loss, further a sum of Rs 10,000 for mental agony and a sum of Rs 10,000 for the litigation cost.
So, the total sum amount that the opposite party is liable to pay is Rs. 33,775 within 45 days, in case the opposite party fails to comply with the said order in the given time period than 9 percent per annum rate of interest will be carried upon from the date of order till realization.
The opposite party is entitled for the possession and ownership of the party. The judgment was given by the commission on 8th may 2024.
Conclusion
The case of Abhishek Gupta vs. Havells India Limited highlights the importance of product safety and the protection of consumer rights under the CPA 2019. The ruling underscored that manufacturers are liable for defects in their products, even in the absence of explicit negligence or fraud. The decision serves as a reminder to manufacturers to ensure the highest safety standards and reinforces consumers’ confidence in seeking redressal for grievances related to defective products.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU
The complainants have filed this complaint u/sec.34 of the Consumer Protection Act-2019 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to pay damages of Rs.3,56,192/- and such other relief as this commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
2. It is not in dispute that complainant No. 2 is the wife of complainant No. 1. Further, it is not in dispute that on 08.07.2020 complainant No. 2 had ordered for a trimmer. Further, the price paid for the trimmer was Rs.2,149/-. Further, it is not in dispute that on 11.07.2020 Flipkart had delivered the product to the complainant No. 2.
3. It is the further case of the complainants that complainant No. 2 had gifted the said trimmer to her husband complainant No. 1. Further, complainant No. 1 had followed all the instructions provided in the brochure before the first use. Further, after about 20 minutes of the charging, the trimmer had started vibrating and red light was flashing and the complainant No. 1 had unplugged the same from charging unit and isolated the trimmer from the electricity source. Upon inspecting the trimmer, the complainant No. 1 felt it extremely hot and before he could understand anything the trimmer exploded in his hands. Further, the right palm of complainant No. 1 was severally injured than his left palm. Further, complainant No. 1 was rushed to Columbia Asia Hospital and had taken treatment and had incurred hospital bill of Rs.1,624/- in addition to multiple trips to hospital. Hence, the product was not properly tested and there was defect in the product.
4. It is the further case of opposite party that in every product a detailed user manual as well as guarantee and other disclaimers are provided to the consumer. Further, the user manual was also provided to ensure that product shall be used and maintained in a manner which ensures its preservation and longevity. Further, the product was launched in the year 2017 only after undergoing extensive tests in laboratories both in India and abroad. Further, there are several Dos and Don’ts which consumer must comply while using the product.
5. Further, on 12.07.2020 opposite party had received an E-mail complaining with respect to product that it had exploded. Further, on 16.07.2020 the complainants demanded for refund of the amount paid to the product. Further, the complainants refused to provide the product purchased for the purpose of testing. Further, there is no reliable report which has been produced to show that the defect was in fact within the batteries. Further, the complainant did not follow the provision u/sec. 38(2) of CP Act. Further, as per Section 84(2) and Section 87 of CP Act, opposite party is not liable to make any payment and there are exceptions to the product liability action. Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.
6. To prove the case, the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit by way of his evidence in chief and got marked Ex.P1 to P13 documents. The Working Manager at opposite party (RW-1) has filed affidavit by way of his evidence in chief and got marked Ex.R1 to R10 documents. Counsels for both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.
7. Heard the arguments.
8. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether there was manufacturing defect in the product?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitle for the relief sought ?
iii) What order?
9. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1: In affirmative
Point No.2: partly in affirmative
Point No.3: As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
4. POINT NO.1 & 2:- In order to avoid the repetition of facts, we have discussed both the points together. PW-184 RW- 1 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed by way of their evidence in chief. On perusal of the record it appears that on 07.10.2023 this commission has directed the complainants to take steps to get the product tested as provided u/sec. 38(2) of CP Act, 2019. The complainants have challenged tile said order before the Hon’ble State Commission in RP No. 50/2023 and on 05.12.2023 the Hon’ble State Commission has allowed the Revision Petition and had held that the product does not require any laboratory tests and basing on the Doctrine of res-ipso-loquitur it does not require any laboratory test.
11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the complainant did not get tested the product as contemplated u/sec. 38 of CP Act. The complainant has produced the product itself before commission. On perusal of the same it appears that it cannot be used and its battery was exploded. Further, in the light of the order passed by Hon’ble KSCDRC as stated above and on perusal of the product itself we feel that further test on laboratory is not required. Apart from that Section 38 of CP Act, provides that the defect which cannot be traced without proper analysis of test of the goods then only it is to be referred to the proper laboratory. We feel since it could be seen by examining the product on bare eyes, on inspecting it is found that the product cannot be used no more and further test is not required.
12. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the complainant has used the product as per the instruction given in the brochure and user manual. It is not the case of opposite party that because of mishandled the product, it was exploded. On perusal of the photo print produced by the complainant vide Ex.P5 it appears that the product was damaged and the complainant had sustained injury on the palm. Further, on perusal of Ex.P7 medical report it appears that on 11.07.2020 the complainant had obtained treatment for the injury in question. Opposite party did not dispute the said medical report.
13. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the product was properly tested. In support of the contention the counsel relies Ex.R6 to Ex.R10 inspection and test report. Further, opposite party has also produced the report sent by independent laboratory vide Ex.R5.
14. According to PW-1 after 20 minutes of charging the trimmer started vibrating and red light was flashing and after the same was unplugged from the charging unit the complainant felt extremely hot and before he could understand anything the trimmer exploded in his hands. It is the presumption that normally no one could file case on the product which was for a sum of Rs.2,149/-. Further, the complainant had no against opposite party. Therefore, we feel since the product was defect in character, it has exploded. Hence, there was manufacturing defect in the product on the part of opposite party and opposite party is liable for action under chapter-6 product liability under CP Act, 2019.
15. The complainant claims the damages of Rs.3,56,192/-. The cost of the damage of the product was Rs.2,149/-. We feel the complainant is entitle for the same. However, the complainant claims cost of medication of Rs.1,624/-. We feel the complainant is entitle for the said amount. Further, the complainant claims the expenses met in the hospital towards dressings, extra support at home for a sum of Rs.50,000/- and the complainant was not able to work properly and he had incurred expenses of Doctor’s clinic and had paid fee to Doctor of Rs.118/-. There is no cogent evidence to prove the same. We feel over all, the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.10,000/- in addition to cost of damaged product and cost of medication of Rs.1,624/-. Further, we feel the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost. Hence, we answer point No. 1 in affirmative and point No. 2 partly in affirmative.
16. POINT No.3:- In view of the discussions made above, we proceed to pass the following;
ORDER
Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Party is directed to pay a total sum of Rs.13,774/- i.e., rounded to Rs.13,775/- and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and a su,n of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The opposite party shall comply the order within 45 days. In case the opponent fails to comply the same within the above said period. the above said amount of Rs.33,775/- carries interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. Opposite party is entitle for the possession and ownership of the product.
Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 08th day of May 2024)
Author Bio
