SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

PUNJAB STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHANDIGARH
Honble Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President;
& Mr. Ram Lal Gupta, Member
KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD.—Appellant
versus
SURINDER PAL GARG & ANR.—Respondents
First Appeal No. 386 of 1996—Decided on 30.1.1997

Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. P.K. Dutt, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. V.K. Garg & Mr. R.P. Rana, Advocates.

The manufacturer of defective goods is liable to the consumer for any defects found in the goods sold, irrespective of any sole selling agent or dealer.

Headnote:

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - MANUFACTURER LIABILITY - SECTION 2(1)(D), 2(J), 12, 13(1)(A), 14(1) - MANUFACTURER OF DEFECTIVE GOODS IS LIABLE TO THE CONSUMER FOR ANY DEFECTS FOUND IN THE GOODS SOLD, IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY SOLE SELLING AGENT OR DEALER.

Fact of the Case:

A consumer purchased a refrigerator from a dealer, who provided a warranty for defects in the goods. After the refrigerator stopped working twice, the consumer filed a complaint with the District Forum against the manufacturer and the dealer. The manufacturer argued that it had sold the refrigerators to a wholesale buyer on a principal-to-principal basis and that the wholesale buyer was responsible for providing after-sale service to the consumers.

Finding of the Court:

The District Forum held the manufacturer liable for the defects in the refrigerator and ordered it to pay the consumer the purchase price of the refrigerator with interest and litigation expenses. The manufacturer appealed to the State Commission.

Issues: Whether the manufacturer of goods can be absolved of its obligations by unilaterally selling the entire goods to a sole selling agent who further markets such goods through dealers providing warranty for defects in the goods.

Ratio Decidendi: The State Commission held that the manufacturer of defective goods is liable to the consumer for any defects found in the goods sold, irrespective of any sole selling agent or dealer. The court noted that the Consumer Protection Act does not exclude the actual manufacturer from the definition of manufacturer, who decides to sell the goods manufactured to one of the sole selling companies. The court held that if this were allowed, the very purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act would be frustrated as the complainants would not get the benefits of the provisions of the Act, or the remedies made available to them.

Final Decision: The State Commission dismissed the appeal and affirmed the order of the District Forum.

ORDER

Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—Short question but of great significance in consumer jurisdiction arises in this appeal filed by well known Company dealing in manufacture of refrigerators of make 'Kelvinator', as to whether manufacturer of goods can be absolved of the obligations by unilateral act of selling the entire goods to sole selling agent who further markets such goods through dealers providing warranty for defects in the goods.

2. The appellant, M/s. Kelvinator India Ltd. with registered office at New Delhi is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act. It manufactures refrigerators of 'Kelvinator' make in its factory. One such refrigerator was purchased by the complainant S.P. Garg of Village Munak, District Sangrur from M/s. Jai Durga Electronics Company, Munak for a sum of Rs. 5,500/-in March, 1989. A sum of Rs. 450/- was also paid as service charges. The refrigerator after working for two months abruptly stopped. A report was made to the dealer M/s. Jai Durga Electronics Company. Some repairs were done to the refrigerator and it started working. In April, 1990, it again stopped working. The old defects continued. The complaint made to the dealer did not bring any fruit. The fridge was not replaced or repaired. The complainant S.P. Garg thus, moved the District Forum, Sangrur for replacement of the refrigerator or refund of the amount paid with interest @ 18% p.a. He also claimed Rs. 2,000/-compensation on account of mental tension and agony, apart from litigation charges. He impleaded the manufacturer, the appellant and the dealer M/s; Jai Durga Electronics Company as the opposite parties. Both the opposite parties filed separate written statements. Opposite party No. 1 the appellant took up the plea that the refrigerators manufactured by them were being sold to whole sale buyers on principle to principle basis. The appellant had not appointed any dealer. Jai Durga Electronics Company was not their dealer. Whole sale buyer was responsible to provide after sale service to the consumers, who had given warranty to the consumers. On receipt of the complaint, the appellant used to forward the same to the whole sale buyer, who was attending to the same. The whole sale buyer's name and address was also given in para 5 of the reply as Expo Machinery Ltd., New Delhi. The notice received from the District Forum was forwarded to Expo Machinery, Ltd. with the request to attend the complaint to the entire satisfaction of the complainant. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the appellant. Thus, the complainant was not entitled to any relief from the appellant. The other opposite party M/s. Jai Durga Electronics Company in their written statement admitted the fact of sale of refrigerator to the complainant and further pleaded that their Company was a dealer of Expo Machinery Ltd. for sale of Kelvinator refrigerator at Munak. One year warranty was given from the date of purchase for repair and service and six years for the sealed components. The contract of service was with Expo Machinery Ltd. The warranty period expired on March 10, 1990. The complaint was liable to be dismissed as Expo Machinery Ltd. was not joined as a party. It was denied that the refrigerator stopped functioning after two months. It was pleaded that due to mishandling on the part of the complainant, the gas leaked which was refilled without any charges. No other complaint was made. It was denied that the refrigerator was not functioning. In August, 1992, the complainant orally asserted that the refrigerator be replaced. It is about 3 ½ years from its purchase. The request was not acceded to. On visit to the house of the complainant in August, 1992, the refrigerator could not be inspected as he was not allowed to do so. He undertook to remove the defect if any in the functioning of the refrigerator. On receiving the evidence on affidavits and documents, the impugned order was passed by the District Forum on May 27, 1996 givi







Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top