Complaint regarding defective replacement jar supplied for Usha Food Processor FP3811, deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and harassment of

[vidit shah]

Dealer Name

Usha International

Company Name

Usha International

Product Name

Usha FP 3811 Food Processor

Customer Care Number

18001033111

Loss Amount

2000

Ratings

2.00 star(s)

Opposite Party Address

Plot No. 15, Institutional Area
Sector-32, Gurgaon, Haryana
Pin: 122001

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019​

Complainant: VIDIT SHAH ​

A/54 , Aashiyana Tower , Sodawala Lane , Borivali West , Mumbai 400092
29viditshah@gmail.com 9833436367
Versus

Opposite Party:
Usha International Limited

Respected Sir/Madam,​

I, the undersigned, respectfully submit this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Usha International Limited for deficiency in service, supply of a defective product, unfair trade practices, and causing mental agony and financial loss.

Facts of the Case​

1. I purchased a Usha Food Processor FP3811 approximately 4–5 years ago with the expectation that it would be a durable and reliable household appliance.
2. During the course of using the product, I was required to replace the 1-litre jar, for which I paid approximately ₹2,000. The replacement jar was purchased on 19 July 2024 from an authorized Usha service centre.
3. Barely two years after the replacement, the jar has developed a serious leakage issue, rendering it unsuitable and unsafe for normal kitchen use. A food processor jar is expected to last for several years under ordinary domestic usage. Failure within such a short period clearly indicates poor manufacturing quality or defective materials.
4. I approached the authorized Usha service centre seeking an inspection and replacement of the defective jar. However, instead of resolving the issue, the company completely refused to accept any responsibility.
5. The representatives informed me that:
   • the replacement jar is not covered under warranty,
   • I must again purchase a new jar for approximately ₹2,000,
   • I must additionally pay a ₹300 service charge, despite personally visiting the authorized service centre with the defective product.
6. The company's stand is completely unreasonable. The defect pertains to the replacement jar itself and not to misuse or accidental damage. Instead of examining whether the replacement part supplied was defective or of inferior quality, the company simply denied responsibility and shifted the entire financial burden onto the consumer.

Grounds of Complaint​

The conduct of the Opposite Party amounts to:

• Deficiency in Service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
• Supply of defective goods by providing a replacement component that failed within an unreasonably short period.
• Unfair Trade Practice, wherein consumers are repeatedly compelled to purchase expensive replacement parts because of poor-quality products instead of receiving durable goods.
• Failure to maintain reasonable standards of quality expected from a reputed manufacturer.
• Refusal to investigate the manufacturing quality of the replacement part.
• Arbitrary demand for a ₹300 service charge even when the consumer personally approached the authorized service centre.
• Complete disregard for consumer grievances and refusal to provide any satisfactory resolution.

Mental Agony and Harassment​

The conduct of the Opposite Party has caused me considerable inconvenience, frustration, and mental harassment. As a consumer, I purchased a branded product in good faith expecting durability and after-sales support.

Instead, I have been compelled to repeatedly spend substantial amounts on replacement parts that fail within a short period. The company's refusal to acknowledge the poor quality of its replacement components, coupled with its insistence on charging additional service fees and asking me to once again purchase the same expensive replacement, demonstrates an unfair and consumer-unfriendly approach.

Such practices encourage repeated purchases of inferior-quality components at the expense of consumers and defeat the very purpose of purchasing products from a reputed brand.

Reliefs Sought​

I respectfully pray that this Hon'ble Commission may kindly direct the Opposite Party to:

1. Replace the defective 1-litre jar with a new defect-free jar free of cost, or alternatively refund the amount of approximately ₹2,000 paid for the replacement jar.
2. Waive any inspection or service charges in relation to this complaint.
3. Pay suitable compensation for the mental agony, harassment, inconvenience, and loss of time caused due to the deficient service.
4. Pay litigation costs incurred in pursuing this complaint.
5. Issue appropriate directions to the Opposite Party to ensure that replacement parts supplied to consumers meet reasonable standards of quality and durability, and to prevent recurrence of such unfair practices.
6. Grant any other relief that this Hon'ble Commission deems fit in the interest of justice.

Declaration​

I declare that the facts stated herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Place - MUMBAI
Date - 13 JULY 2026