# Consumer Court Orders Store and Maker to Pay compensation Over Defective Pressure Cooker > A consumer commission in Visakhapatnam has ordered a store, dealer, and manufacturer to collectively pay 16,755 rupees to a woman after she filed a complaint stating her pressure cooker failed to cook food properly despite multiple whistles. **Type:** article · **Category:** Business · **Published:** 2026-11-13 · **Source:** TrendKia **Canonical:** https://trendkia.com/en/business/vishakhapattanama-men-preshara-kukara-vivada-para-korta-ka-bara-phaisala-stora-aura-knpani-para-laga-jurmana-59352 · **Language:** English **Tags:** Consumer Court, Visakhapatnam, Pressure Cooker, Consumer Rights, Consumer Commission A routine kitchen chore turned into a legal battle when a woman approached a consumer court in Visakhapatnam to voice her frustration over a faulty appliance. The consumer bought a pressure cooker to simplify daily cooking, but she soon discovered that it failed to cook staples like rice and lentils properly even after emitting three to four whistles. After failing to get a satisfactory resolution from the local retailer, she decided to take the matter to the consumer dispute redressal forum to seek justice. ## Court Verdict and Financial Compensation After reviewing the arguments and submissions from all involved parties, the Visakhapatnam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found clear deficiencies in the services provided by the store, the dealer, and the cooker manufacturer. Presiding over the case, Judge Gudla Tanuja issued an order directing all three respondents to pay 16,755 rupees to the aggrieved woman. The panel ruled that she was fully entitled to receive a refund for the appliance cost, along with appropriate compensation for mental agony and reimbursement for legal expenses incurred. ## Purchase and Initial Flaws The consumer had purchased a four-litre deep-pan pressure cooker from a retail store for 1755 rupees, completing the transaction via UPI. The problem became apparent on the very same day of the purchase when she attempted to cook rice. Despite the pressure cooker whistling three to four times, the grains remained only partially cooked. When the exact same issue repeated the next day while trying to prepare lentils, she reached out to the store. According to her statements, the store staff displayed an insensitive attitude and simply told her to visit the company service center. ## Service Issues and Dispute Due to her age and underlying physical ailments, the woman was unable to travel to the designated service center. Subsequently, the store collected the cooker from her and issued a service job sheet, but the customer maintained that she wanted a complete replacement rather than a repair job. The consumer court noted that while the manufacturing company later claimed it had instructed the dealer to replace the unit, the dealer ignored the directive. Meanwhile, the store and dealer argued that they had personally tested the cooker and even presented a video showing it operating without any faults. ## Arguments Regarding Deficiencies Attorneys representing the dealer told the commission that the customer had rejected an invitation to visit the service center to witness a live demonstration. They further argued that she insisted on a replacement despite the appliance functioning properly and demanded an unreasonably high compensation amount. The defense also pointed out that the woman failed to produce any expert opinion or technical report proving a manufacturing defect. Furthermore, the store and dealer accused her of threatening legal action and claiming personal connections with commission staff. The manufacturing company argued that its warranty obligations were strictly confined to repairing or replacing products with certified manufacturing defects, noting that their operational tests showed the cooker was in proper working order. However, the commission observed that the store, dealer, and manufacturer completely failed to submit their warranty terms before the bench. The panel questioned why a replacement was offered as a goodwill gesture if the appliance supposedly had no flaws whatsoever. ## Upholding Consumer Rights The bench concluded that the buyer was legally entitled to a refund under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act as part of her rights, rather than as a voluntary favor from the company. The commission strongly condemned the allegations made by the respondents claiming the customer used inside connections to intimidate staff, labeling those remarks as defamatory and an attempt to damage the institution's reputation while disparaging the complainant. ## What this means for you This ruling serves as an important legal precedent for buyers who face poor customer service or uncooperative retailers after purchasing faulty household goods. - **Across India:** Consumers have the legal right to seek a full refund and compensation if a purchased product proves defective and sellers refuse to cooperate. Retailers and manufacturers can be held jointly liable for deficiencies in service. - **In Visakhapatnam:** Local residents dealing with unresponsive vendors can seek formal recourse through the district consumer dispute redressal commission to protect their rights. ## Why this happened The dispute arose because a newly purchased kitchen appliance failed to function properly and the retailers failed to provide a satisfactory resolution to the customer. - **Product Malfunction:** The primary trigger was the cooker's failure to cook food properly despite reaching multiple whistles during daily use. - **Deficient Service:** The retailer and dealer failed to offer a prompt replacement and instead directed the elderly customer to travel to a distant service center. - **Lack of Documentation:** The respondents failed to submit valid warranty terms or technical evidence before the bench to disprove the manufacturing flaw claims. ## Questions & Answers ### 1. Which city is this case from? This case is from Visakhapatnam. ### 2. How much total compensation was ordered by the court? The court ordered a total payment of 16,755 rupees. ### 3. What was the purchase price of the pressure cooker? The cooker was purchased for 1755 rupees. ### 4. What was the capacity of the cooker? It was a four-litre deep-pan pressure cooker. ### 5. When did the consumer court issue this order? The order was issued on October 31. --- _TrendKia — Har trend, sabse pehle.. Machine-readable view; canonical HTML at the URL above._