Back
THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.N. Mittal, President;
Sh. B.L. Anand, Member; Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member
Dr. R.B. SINGH—Complainant/Appellant
versus
NOVEX ENGINEERING COMPANY & ANOTHER—O.Ps./Respondents
A-13 of 1992—Decided on 1.7.1992
Counsel for the Parties :
For the. Appellant : In person.
For the. Respondents:Mr. Bhargava & Mr. Krishan Kumar, Advocate.
The manufacturer of a defective product is liable to replace the product or refund the cost along with damages to the consumer.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 - SECTION 2(1)(g) - SALE OF GOODS ACT, 1930 - SECTION 16(1) - CONSUMER PROTECTION REGULATIONS, 1987 - REGULATION 3 - DEFECTIVE PRODUCT - REPLACEMENT OF DEFECTIVE PRODUCT - LIABILITY OF MANUFACTURER AND DISTRIBUTOR - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - CONSUMER'S RIGHT TO REDRESS - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The complainant purchased an automatic washing machine from the distributor, M/s. Novex Engineering Company, Pvt. Ltd., which turned out to be defective. Despite repeated complaints, the distributor failed to rectify the defects. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the distributor, seeking replacement of the machine, compensation for harassment, and assurance of satisfactory performance. The District Forum directed the distributor to replace the machine or refund the cost along with damages.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission set aside the District Forum's order and remanded the complaint for a fresh hearing. It held that the manufacturer, M/s. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., was a necessary party to the proceedings and should have been impleaded in the complaint. The Commission also noted that the distributor was no longer dealing in the machines and was not liable to render further service during the guarantee period.
Issues: 1. Whether the manufacturer, M/s. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., was a necessary party to the proceedings. 2. Whether the distributor, M/s. Novex Engineering Company, Pvt. Ltd., was liable to replace the defective machine or refund the cost along with damages.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines 'consumer' as a person who buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose. 2. Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines 'goods' as any movable property other than actionable claims and money and includes stocks and shares and growing crops. 3. Section 16(1) of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 provides that where the buyer, expressly or by implication, makes known to the seller the particular purpose for which the goods are required, and the buyer relies on the seller's skill or judgment, and the goods are of a description which it is in the course of the seller's business to supply, there is an implied condition that the goods shall be reasonably fit for such purpose. 4. Regulation 3 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 1987 provides that where a consumer alleges that any goods sold or delivered to him suffer from any defect, the consumer shall, within a period of fifteen days from the date of delivery of the goods, give notice in writing to the trader, clearly specifying the nature of the defect.
Final Decision: The State Commission set aside the District Forum's order and remanded the complaint for a fresh hearing, impleading the manufacturer, M/s. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd., as a necessary party.
Dr. (Mrs.) Avtar Pennathur, Member— This is an appeal filed by Dr. R.B. Singh complainant before the. District Forum in case No. 245/90 decided on 22-1-92. The appellant purchased an automatic machine SUMEET K-30 from M/s. Novex Engineering Company, Private Limited being the. authorised distributor of the said machine in Delhi on 20-2-88 for Rs. 10,066/- with two years’ guarantee. The appellant lodged a complaint before the District Forum on 6-2-90 against M/s. Novex Engineering Company, Private Limited alleging that the washing machine was defective and prayed that they should replace the machine, with two years further guarantee, and assure, its performance upto expectations for its full service life and they be directed to pay compensation for harassment and physical torture caused due to unsatisfactory performance of the machine.
2. The District Forum by its order dated 22-192 directed the respondent M/s. Novex Engineering Company, Pvt. Ltd. to replace the machine with the new automatic machine as is being manufactured these days or to refund the cost of the machine to the complainant along with Rs. 5,000/- as damages within 60 days from the date of the order. The complainant has come up in appeal before us.
3. The complainant had not impleaded the manufacturer M/s. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Limited in his complaint dated 6-2-1990. The order dated 22-1-1992 passed by the District Forum is only against respondent No. 1, the respondent impleaded by complainant i.e. M/s. Novex Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. However, in his appeal dated 19th Feb., 1992 the appellant (complainant in the District Forum) has impleaded both M/s. Novex Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. as respondent No. 1 and M/s. Sumeet Machines (Pvt.) Ltd. as respondent No. 2.
4. The appeal has been contested by both the respondents Respondent No. 1 has filed counter objection to the appeal dated 8th May, 1992 and prayed that the impugned ex-parte order of the District Forum dated 22-1-1992 be set-aside against respondent No. 1 as respondent No. 1 was no longer the agent of the manufacturer, M/s. Sumeet Machines, Pvt. Ltd. and was no longer responsible and liable to render further service during the guarantee period issued on behalf of their erstwhile principals. They are also not liable to pay any cost or damages. These facts are corroborated from the record of the District Forum where in the order sheet dated 18-7-91, it is stated that M/s. Novex Engineering Company, Pvt. Ltd. are no longer dealing in these machines. Respondent No. 1 has further pleaded that their guarantee card issued by them was on behalf of its erstwhile principals M/s. Sumeet Machines Pvt. Ltd. who were necessary party to the proceedings. The expart order passed by the District Forum was against respondent No. 1 and inspire of letter dated 18-7-91 their erstwhile principals were not impleaded who intact are the main party to the proceedings for a fair trial to the dispute between the parties.
5. The appeal has been contested by respondent No. 2 Sumeet Machines, Private Limited manufacturer of the machine. In their reply dated 25th March, 1992, they have contended that the appeal has been filed by the appellant/complainant against opposite party No. 1 and opposite party No. 2 wherein the order has been passed by the District Forum only against opposite party No. 1 and therefore, the appeal is untenable. They have further pleaded that in case the appellant wants to proceed against opposite party No. 2, he has to get the order of the District Forum dated 2nd Jan. ‘92 suitably amended/reviewed/revised, as otherwise no cause of action lies against opposite party No. 2. It is further stated that in view of several wrong statements and insinuations made by the appellant against the reply of the opposite party which appear to be motivated, opposite party No. 2 would be compelled to make a counter appeal against the aforesaid order of the District Forum dated 22.1.92. However, it is unable to do so as the or
