Feedback

Defective Product Case: Delhi Consumer Forum Orders Compensation for Faulty Thermal Massage Bed

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-III (West), Government of NCT of Delhi, recently delivered a significant judgment in Complaint Case No. 561/2017. The case was filed by Perumal Kumar, a resident of Dwarka, Delhi, against M/S Spansure Medical Instrument Pvt. Ltd. The complainant alleged severe deficiencies in the service and quality of a Spansure V3 Plus Thermal Jade Massage Bed, resulting in mental agony, financial loss, and health risks.

Case Background

The complainant, Perumal Kumar, purchased a Spansure V3 Plus Thermal Jade Massage Bed for ₹1,23,750 on August 19, 2016, with a two-year warranty. Shortly after purchase, the product exhibited overheating issues. Despite assurances from the opposite party (OP), the problem persisted, culminating in a near-hazardous situation on May 26, 2017, when the external projector overheated and emitted fumes.

Attempts to contact the company through phone numbers provided on the invoice were unsuccessful. The complainant later visited the company's office in person, seeking a refund and return of the defective product, which the company flatly refused. A legal notice sent by the complainant on June 6, 2017, also went unanswered.

Complainant’s Allegations

The complainant asserted the following:

1. The product posed safety risks due to overheating and was unfit for use.
2. The opposite party failed to provide adequate after-sales support and did not respond to complaints or legal notices.
3. The absence of mandatory manufacturer/importer details on the product's packaging violated consumer protection laws.
4. The defective product caused mental agony, financial loss, and harassment.

The complainant sought:

• Refund of ₹1,23,750 for the product.
• Compensation of ₹5,00,000 for mental and physical distress.
• ₹50,000 as litigation costs.

Defense by Opposite Party

The opposite party contested the allegations, claiming:

1. The complainant purchased the product for commercial use, making him ineligible for protection under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. There was no overheating issue or deficiency in service.
3. The complainant’s grievances were fabricated, including YouTube videos allegedly uploaded to tarnish the company’s reputation.

The company further argued that the complainant had not allowed them to inspect the product for rectification, showing an intention to extort money.

Forum’s Observations

The forum examined the evidence, including:

1. Invoice and warranty card submitted by the complainant.
2. Photographs of the overheated product.
3. The legal notice and lack of response from the opposite party.

The forum found no evidence to support the opposite party’s claim that the product was purchased for commercial use. Additionally, the absence of after-sales support and the failure to rectify the issue during the warranty period were considered clear deficiencies in service.

Key Legal Findings

1. The complainant was deemed a consumer under Section 2(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as the product was purchased for personal use.
2. The forum relied on legal precedents, including:
   • SGS India Ltd. vs. Dolphin International Ltd.: The burden of proving deficiency lies on the complainant.
   • Ravneet Singh Bagga vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines: Deficiency must be proven through evidence.
   • Charan Singh vs. Healing Touch Hospital: Compensation should serve justice and deter unfair trade practices.

Order

The forum ruled in favor of the complainant, holding the opposite party guilty of deficiency in service. It directed M/S Spansure Medical Instrument Pvt. Ltd. to:

• Refund ₹1,23,750 for the massage bed.
• Pay ₹25,000 as compensation for mental agony.
• Pay ₹20,000 as litigation costs.

The amounts are to be paid within 30 days of receiving the order, failing which additional penalties may apply.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment highlights the importance of accountability in after-sales service and adherence to consumer protection laws. The forum emphasized that manufacturers and sellers must honor their warranties and ensure product safety. Consumers are entitled to compensation for any deficiencies in service that cause distress or financial loss.