A consumer cannot claim replacement of a defective product after the expiry of the warranty period unless he can prove that the defect was due to a manufacturing defect.

Smt. C.G. Sethu Lakshmi, Member—This is an appeal filed by M/s Solidaire India Ltd., against the order dated 29-10-90 of the Consumer Disputes Redressal District Forum, Ernakulam in O.P. No. EKM/184/90 allowing the Complainant Respondent to get the replacement of his picture tube for his television set free of cost from the Appellant

2. The facts of the case, in so far as they are necessary for understanding the contentions raised in the appeal may be shortly stated.

3. On 10-4-87, the Respondent in this appeal purchased a Solidaire Colour Television Set (CTS 605) from Hi-Beam Electronics Private Ltd., (Now Solidaire India Ltd.) the appellants. Since the last week of June, 1990, the performance of the television set deteriorated and the picture tube was not working properly. On 12-7-1990 the Respondent complained about the matter to the Appellant. On 17-7-1990 the T.V. Set was checked by a technician sent by the Appellant and the Respondent was informed that one of the filements of the picture tube was not working and the picture tube should be replaced with a new one to get clear colour combination. According to the Complainant (respondent), normally the picture tube in a television set has got a life span of 10 to 15 years and some companies like Binatone offers 3 years guarantee to the picture tube whereas the complainant was not able to use it at least for a period of 3 years and that was due to its poor quality and manufacturing defect. A complaint was filed before the District Forum, Ernakulam, praying that the opposite party (Appellant) may be directed to replace the defective picture tube free of cost because it had become defective within such a short period owing to manufacturing defects. This prayer was allowed by the District Forum. Against the order of the District Forum allowing the complainant (respondent) to get the replacement of the defective picture tube with a new one free of cost, this appeal has been filed.

4. One of the contentions in the appeal is this, “The Forum ought to have seen that Sec. 2(1)(f) defines “defect” and if quality of anything mentioned therein is not according to the claim made by the manufacturers in regard to products then, and only then could it be said that there is a defect. In the instant case, the admitted case of the Respondent is that the manufacturer has given the warranty of one year and the allegations in the petition even if true cannot be said that there is a defect as admittedly the defect was there only after the expiry of 3 years.”

5. Another contention of the Appellant is that when the respondent purchased the television set, he knew that the warranty period was only for one year and so, the respondent had no right to claim the replacement of the picture tube which had become defective, two years after the expiry of warranty period. It was also contended in the appeal that even though the respondent was aware of the fact that other companies were giving a warranty for 3 years for picture tube, he purchased the television set from the appellant, knowing fully well that it was given only one year’ s guarantee and therefore the respondent is stopped from questioning the period at a later stage on the ground of comparison.

6. The finding of the District Forum is that under Sec. 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, ‘Defect’ is defined and it could be seen that the quality or standard of goods, “as is claimed by the trader in any manner what so ever in relation to any goods” should be maintained if not, it has to be deemed as a defect under the Act. It again finds that simply because a period of one year is given as warranty, that does not mean that the claim of the opposite party regarding the quality of picture tube should be only for one year, but what is meant by giving a period of warranty is only an undertaking issued by the party that he will rectify the defect if any free of cost during the said period.

7. We agree with the portion of the finding of the District F