Cloudtail Faces Rs 1 Lakh Fine for Violating Consumer Rights in Pressure Cooker Sale
Introduction: The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has declined the appeal of Cloudtail India Private Limited against an order from the Central Consumer Protection Authority (CCPA). The order was issued due to Cloudtail’s violation of consumer rights in the sale of pressure cookers that did not adhere to mandatory Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) norms and quality control orders (QCOs). The CCPA imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on Cloudtail India for this transgression. Furthermore, the NCDRC upheld the CCPA’s decision and instructed Cloudtail India to refund affected consumers, initiate a recall of 1,033 pressure cooker units, and submit a compliance report within 45 days.
Pressure Cooker Violations: Cloudtail India, a seller on the Amazon e-commerce platform, offered a product named “Amazon Basics Stainless Steel Outer Lid Pressure Cooker, 4 L (does not give pressure alert by whistle).” The company faced scrutiny as these pressure cookers were found to be on sale without adhering to the mandatory Indian Standard (IS) 2347: 2017 and lacking the standard mark under a license from the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) as stipulated by Scheme-I of Schedule II of Bureau of Indian Standard (Conformity Assessment) Regulations, 2018.
Importance of Compliance: The Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution highlighted the significance of domestic pressure cookers as widely used household items. Non-compliance with the Quality Control Order (QCO) for this product was deemed a substantial risk to consumers’ safety and well-being.
Cloudtail’s Non-Compliance: The CCPA’s investigation revealed that Cloudtail was selling domestic pressure cookers that did not meet the mandatory standards and lacked the required ISI mark under the BIS license. Surprisingly, this sale continued even after the QCO came into effect.
Company Response and CCPA Observations: Cloudtail responded by stating that it had suspended pressure cooker imports after the QCO was implemented. However, the CCPA noted that despite the suspension of imports, the sale of these non-compliant pressure cookers to consumers persisted. The CCPA pointed out that the company’s response clearly indicated that Cloudtail was aware of the QCO but continued to sell the substandard pressure cookers to a wide consumer base.
Conclusion: The dismissal of Cloudtail’s appeal by the NCDRC underscores the significance of adhering to consumer rights and product quality standards. This case emphasizes the pivotal role of regulatory bodies like CCPA in safeguarding consumers from potential risks posed by non-compliant products. Cloudtail’s violation serves as a reminder to businesses that prioritizing consumer safety and compliance with regulatory standards is of utmost importance to maintain their reputation and legal standing.
