AQUA TECHNOLOGIES (PVT) LTD

AQUA TECHNOLOGIES (PVT) LTD
VS.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AUTHORITY AND OTHERS

COURT OF APPEAL
SRISKANDARAJAH.J P/CA
CA 1068/2007
JUNE 17, 2010
AUGUST 3, 2010
SEPTEMBER 2, 2010
OCTOBER 28, 2010
NOVEMBER 26, 2010

Consumer Affairs Authority Act - Section 12, 13 [1], 13 [2]- Application prescribed under Section 13 [2]-? Guarantee period - Timebar - Audi alteram parlem rule- Seeking postponements- No sanctions could be imposed by 1st respondent-Award of cost-Legality?-Can damages be awarded? Could the sum spent to keep the business going till the machine is put right be awarded? - Specific and general damages?

The petitioner supplies water treatment plants to customers. The 3rd respondent is the provider of service in relation to goods supplied by the petitioner. At the request of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner supplied a reverse osmosis water treatment plant to the 2nd Respondent's Hotel. The 2nd respondent brought to the notice of the petitioner problems relating to the plants filler-the petitioner referred the problem to the 3rd respondent- as it was a service matter. The problem was looked into and attended to by the 3rd respondent. However, the 2nd respondent claimed a sum of Rs. 1,409,267.50 from the petitioner alleging it being the sum for which the 2nd respondent had purchased the said plant. On a complaint lodged with the Consumer directed the Protection Authority an inquiry was held, after inquiry the 1st respondent sought to quash the said order the basis that the 1st respondent had entertained the complaint even though the said complaint was prescribed under Section 13 [3].

Held:

(1) The complaint is in relation to the malfunctioning of the plant, within the period of guarantee given by the petitioner. The compliant is not prescribed under Section 13 [2] as the complaint is in relation to the malfunctioning of the plant, within the period of guarantee.

(2) Inquiry under Section 13 [1] b. Section 13 [2] prescribes a 3 months period to make complaints from the sale of such goods or provision of service- this time period will not cover complaints in relation to Section 13 [1] b- where the manufacture or sale of any goods which has not conformed to the warrantee or guarantee given by implication or otherwise.

(3) Time limit of 3 months stipulated in Section 13 [2] will not apply to a complaint under Section 13 [1] b.

PER SRISKANDARAJAH, J.

"If the authority is of the opinion that the manufacturer/trader is seeking postponement to cause undue delay or that it is not co-operating with the inquiry, the Authority could proceed ex parte and come to a finding but the Authority has no power under the law to impose sanctions on the manufacturer/trader to pay cost- the Authority cannot impose a punishment/sanctions by way of imposing cost on the manufacturer/trader.

(4) The consumer is entitled to make complaints in relation to any defects to the product and in return the consumer would be compensated by replacing such goods or to refund the amount paid for such goods. The compensation referred to In Section 13 [4] would extend to replace or repair the said goods to bring back the said goods to the standard required. This section does not provide for specific or general damages caused to the consumer by the malfunctioning or defect of the said goods.

(5) The 1st respondent has no power under the law to award any sum as compensation other than what is provided under Section 13 [4]. General or specific damages incurred by a consumer have to be specifically pleaded and claimed in a civil suit.

(6) No sum as compensation could be paid on account of the sum spent by the respondent to keep the business going till the machine was put right.

APPLICATION for a writ of Certiori.

Case referred to:-

David Pieris Motor Company Ltd vs. Consumer Affairs Authority- CA 635/2007

I.R. Rajapakse for petitioner

Vikum de Abrew for 1st respondent

Rohan Sahabandu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document