Dealer Not Responsible For Manufacturing Defects: Ernakulam District Commission Holds Whirlpool India Liable For Deficiency In Service

The Ernakulam District Commission, presided by Shri. D.B. Binu, Shri. V. Ramachandran and Smt. Sreevidhia T.N., held Whirlpool India liable for deficiency in service due to selling a product with a manufacturing defect and not taking action to rectify the defects upon complaining. However, the Commission dismissed the case against Bismi Connect, citing that dealers are not responsible for manufacturing defects. Brief Facts of the Case The complainant purchased a refrigerator from Bismi Connect/ dealer, manufactured by Whirlpool India/manufacturer, for Rs. 37,901 . Upon delivery and installation, a manufacturing defect, a 3-inch rupture in the fridge's inner body, was discovered. Despite notifying the dealer and subsequent attempts to resolve the issue, including legal notices, neither the manufacturer nor the dealer took corrective action. This led to mental distress, financial losses, and work disruptions for the complainant. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission and sought a refund of the cost of the fridge and compensation of Rs. 20,000 for the inconvenience caused, along with Rs. 1,000 for the cost of litigation. Contentions of the Opposite Party The dealer argued that dealers are only responsible for replacing defective parts, not the entire product. The dealer further contended that the complainant did not provide expert evidence to prove a defect requiring total replacement and asserted that they had not caused any mental agony, financial loss, or job problems. They requested the Commission to dismiss the complaint, stating there was no evidence of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. Additionally, the case against the manufacturer was set ex parte. Observations by the District Commission The District Commission observed that as per Section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019, the complainant qualified as a consumer based on the purchase of the refrigerator, substantiated by a valid invoice. The commission highlighted that despite repeated requests for resolution, both the manufacturer and dealer failed to address the complaints adequately. The Commission noted that the complainant's evidence, including the invoice, initial complaint, postal receipts, and legal notice, remained unchallenged by the manufacturer. This lack of rebuttal strengthened the credibility of the complainant's claims regarding the defective product and inadequate service. The commission cited several case laws to support its findings. In V.P. Asokan v. M/S Carrier Company, it was established that dealers have a legal obligation to facilitate repairs and provide adequate after-sales service. Furthermore, Dr. Thirumeny M.J v. Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd highlighted that failing to file a written version or contest allegations strengthens the complainant's case. The case of Nachiket P. Shirgaonkar v. Pandit Automotive Ltd. & Another demonstrated that products requiring frequent repairs shortly after purchase indicate a defective product, holding both the manufacturer and seller liable. Finally, Kishan Rao v. Nikhil Super Speciality Hospital and Another clarified that expert evidence is required only in complex cases, as defects in straightforward cases are evident without the need for expert testimony. Based on the evidence, the Commission held the manufacturer liable for the manufacturing defects, negligence, and resulting losses experienced by the complainant. However, it exempted the dealer from liability, as they were only the dealers and not responsible for manufacturing defects. Furthermore, the commission emphasized consumer protection obligations, highlighting the manufacturer's duty to ensure product quality and safety. Consequently, the District Commission allowed the complaint against the manufacturer and directed Whirlpool to refund the cost of the fridge and pay Rs. 25,000 for the deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and mental agony, along with Rs. 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings. Case Title: Raviprasad P.V. Vs. Whirlpool India Ltd. Case Number: C.C. No. 22/80 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Dealer Not Responsible For Manufacturing Defects: Ernakulam District Commission Holds Whirlpool India Liable For Deficiency In Service

Ayushi Rani

Tags