Defective fan takes customer in a whirl

Manufacturers come up with the most astonishing excuses to thwart a consumer from getting justice. Here is a case of how a giant like Bajaj Electricals harassed a small consumer who had bought a table fan and had to fight for justice.

Madhav Palkar had purchased a Bajaj fan from Nakoda Steel Centre at Parel in Mumbai. The fan, purchased on March 24, 2011, and it stopped functioning on April 17, within a month. He lodged a complaint with Bajaj's customer care. After three days, a technician visited Palkar and found the problem was with the fan's motor, which required to be replaced. The motor was replaced a month after (on May 17) but the regulator still did not work properly. After about another month, the technician took the faulty fan, and replaced it with a new one (on June 15).

On July 25, while the Palkar couple were taking an afternoon nap, they felt some heat and woke up to find the fan had caught fire. The walls and the ceiling of the house had turned black and the furniture was damaged. Photographs of the damage were taken and a complaint was lodged with Bajaj's service centre. A technician was deputed, who inspected the fan and offered to replace it once again.

Having been fortunate to escape unhurt, Palkar was not interested in taking a risk with another fan. Instead, Palkar demanded compensation and damages. Since Bajaj did not comply, Palkar sent a notice to the company, and then filed a complaint before the Central Mumbai District Forum. He claimed Rs 75,000 as damages along with 18 per cent interest and a compensation of Rs 1 lakh.

Bajaj came up with a novel defence. It argued Palkar had purchased a wall mounting fan model 'Spectrum SW 01-02'. The company explained that coding of the model, where the letter 'S' stands for Spectrum, while 'W' stands for wall mounting fan. Bajaj attributed the fire to Palkar's negligence, claiming that the product had been mishandled by using a wall mounting fan as a table fan. Bajaj claimed that it had replaced the fan even though it was under no obligation to do so, as the guarantee had been invalidated due to mishandling. It also claimed it could not be held liable as Palkar had continued to wrongly use a wall fan as a table fan.

The Forum observed a common consumer cannot be expected to know the significance of the letters 'S' and / or 'W' in the model name. There was nothing to show that Palkar had been informed it was a wall mounting fan which cannot be used as a table fan. Even the guarantee card does not disclose this information. On the contrary, the bill referred to the fan as a 'table fan'. Hence, the Forum concluded the company's defence was unacceptable. The Forum also noted the fan had already been replaced once after its motor was found to be faulty.

By its judgement of May 8, 2014 delivered by Presiding Officer B S Wasekar, on behalf of the bench along with Mr Bhaise, the Forum held the fan was defective. As the problem arose during the peak summer period, the Forum awarded Rs 25,000 as compensation for mental agony. Additionally, for the damage caused to the wall and furniture, the Forum awarded Rs 50,000 as damages, along with nine per cent interest from the date of the complaint. Cost of Rs 5,000 were also granted. Both Bajaj and the shopkeeper were jointly held liable to comply with the order within one month.

A happy customer can give greater mileage to a company by word of mouth publicity. So, it is better to focus on customer satisfaction, rather than spend on litigation and advertisements.

The writer is a consumer activist