11 June 2024 Consumer Protection Act >> Consumer Rights  

A seller of industrial machinery has successfully challenged a consumer forum order that directed them to take back a defective machine and compensate the buyer. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) allowed the revision petition filed by the seller, reversing the decisions of both the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (District Forum) and the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission).

Background of the Case:

The buyer had purchased a radial drilling machine for Rs. 8 lakhs from the seller. Soon after the purchase, the buyer complained of defects in the machine and its inoperability. The buyer claimed they had informed the seller about the issue and requested repairs, but the seller failed to rectify the problem.

The buyer filed a complaint with the District Forum alleging a manufacturing defect and seeking a refund of the purchase price, compensation for mental and physical harassment, and the cost of repairs. The District Forum ruled in favor of the buyer, directing the seller to take back the machine, refund the full amount with interest, and pay additional compensation.

The seller appealed the District Forum's order to the State Commission. The State Commission partially allowed the appeal, reducing the compensation amount but upholding the rest of the order.

Grounds for Revision Petition:

The seller filed a revision petition with the National Commission arguing several key points:

• The buyer did not implead the manufacturer of the machine as a party to the case, even though a manufacturing defect was alleged.
• The buyer failed to follow the procedure mandated under Section 13(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act. This section requires obtaining an expert opinion from a government-authorized laboratory to substantiate claims of manufacturing defects.
• The buyer lacked evidence to prove that the seller's repairs were inadequate or that the defects persisted within the warranty period.

National Commission's Decision:

The National Commission agreed with the seller's arguments. The Commission highlighted the buyer's failure to implead the manufacturer and the lack of an expert report as crucial factors in its decision. Without these elements, the Commission concluded that the claim of a manufacturing defect remained unsubstantiated.

Outcome:

The National Commission's decision sets aside the orders of both the District Forum and the State Commission. The buyer's complaint against the seller is dismissed. This case emphasizes the importance of following proper procedures and providing concrete evidence when pursuing consumer complaints, especially those alleging manufacturing defects.

  Consumer Protection Act, 1986