Manufacturer Liable For Defective Product Even If Fault Is From Installation by Its Agent: State Consumer Commission - 2025-06-25

Manufacturer Cannot Escape Liability by Blaming Installer, State Consumer Commission Upholds Refund Order

Jaipur, India – The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that a manufacturer is vicariously liable for the faults of its dealer/installer, holding that a consumer who paid for a functional product cannot be burdened with transporting a defective item to a distant service center. The bench, comprising Hon'ble Mr. Mukesh (Judicial Member) and Hon'ble Mr. Jay Gautam (Member) , dismissed an appeal filed by Aditya Infotech Ltd., the manufacturer of CP Plus CCTV cameras.

The Commission upheld the District Consumer Commission's order directing the company to refund the cost of a faulty CCTV system, along with compensation for mental anguish, to a consumer.

Background of the Complaint

The case originated from a complaint filed by Vivek Sharma, who purchased a complete CP Plus CCTV system on March 26, 2019, for ₹23,609 from a local dealer, J Technology. The system was installed at his residence in Dholpur and came with a two-year warranty.

However, within a month of installation, Mr. Sharma noticed severe issues: the cameras failed to display clear color images during the day and had dysfunctional black-and-white night vision, rendering the recordings useless. Despite multiple verbal complaints to the installer and a formal legal notice sent on January 8, 2020, the defects were not rectified. This led Mr. Sharma to file a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dholpur, citing deficiency in service and seeking a full refund and compensation.

On September 1, 2022, the District Commission ruled in Mr. Sharma's favor, ordering Aditya Infotech Ltd. (which had merged with the original manufacturer) to refund ₹19,550 (the product cost excluding GST), pay ₹10,000 for mental distress, and ₹5,000 for litigation costs.

Arguments Before the State Commission

Aditya Infotech Ltd. appealed the decision, presenting several contradictory arguments: * Appellant's Stance (Aditya Infotech Ltd.): The company claimed the issue stemmed from faulty installation by the dealer, not a manufacturing defect. They also argued that it was the consumer's responsibility to bring the defective equipment to their authorized service center located 300 kilometers away in Jaipur. In a conflicting claim, they also stated that the issue had already been resolved on February 25, 2020. * Respondent's Stance (Vivek Sharma): The consumer's counsel argued that he had paid for a fully functional, installed system and should not be expected to dismantle the equipment himself—a task requiring technical expertise—and transport it to a distant city, which could risk voiding the warranty. He maintained that the manufacturer is ultimately responsible for the product's performance.

Commission's Decisive Ruling

The State Commission critically analyzed the appellant's shifting and contradictory defenses. The judgment highlighted the inconsistencies, noting, "the appellant has taken contradictory grounds in its reply and the grounds of appeal." The Commission found that the company first denied any defect, then claimed it was repaired, and finally blamed the installer.

In a pivotal observation, the Commission established the principle of vicarious liability, stating:

"The dealer (Opposite Party No. 1) is the agent of the appellant (Aditya Infotech Ltd.). The appellant is liable for the fault of its agent according to the provisions of agency law. Therefore, the appeal is not tenable on any ground."

The court reasoned that a consumer buys a product with the trust that it will perform as promised. It rejected the manufacturer's argument that the consumer should have taken the system to the service center, stating that the appellant could not produce any condition requiring the consumer to do so.

The Commission concluded that the CCTV system was clearly defective and that the manufacturer, Aditya Infotech Ltd., was liable for this defect, regardless of whether the fault lay in manufacturing or installation by its agent. The appeal was dismissed for being without merit and also on the grounds of non-joinder of a necessary party, as the appellant had failed to implead the installer in its appeal.

The decision reinforces the legal principle that manufacturers cannot evade their responsibility to the end consumer by shifting blame to their local dealers or by imposing unreasonable service conditions.