Manufacturers Intentionally Withholding Necessary Spare Parts Of Products Unfair Trade Practice: Kerala Consumer Forum

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently flayed manufacturers for intentionally withholding of essential spare and consumable parts of a component, compelling the customers to abandon such otherwise functional products and acquire replacements for the same. Terming such tactics to pressurize consumers to buy additional products from them as 'restricted trade practice', the Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N. observed:"Manufacturers frequently employ enticing advertising strategies to persuade consumers to purchase their products. However, a recurring problem arises when these companies fail in their duty to provide necessary spare and consumable parts required for the product's proper functioning throughout its anticipated lifespan. This widespread issue affects consumers across various product categories. When manufacturers decline to furnish these vital components, it effectively compels consumers to discard still-functional products. Such conduct constitutes an unfair trade practice, as it coerces consumers into procuring replacements, thereby artificially inflating the manufacturer's sales and profits. Intentional withholding of essential spare and consumable parts by manufacturers leaves consumers with limited options, compelling them to abandon functional products and acquire replacements. This not only imposes financial burdens on consumers but also contributes to environmental degradation through an increase in electronic waste". The complainant had purchased a refrigerator from the 1st Opposite Party, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. which engages in manufacture of electronic devices and home appliances. The refrigerator however, subsequently started experiencing cooling issues. The complainant averred that despite the attempts at repairing the appliance, its performance did not improve, and the communication with the engineer who attempted to repair the same was also challenging. The complainant submitted that in spite of the refrigerator being taken by the service centre for further inspection and repair, the potential gas leak remained, and its performance also worsened. The complainant stated that another engineer had informed him that Samsung would offer a coupon for a new fridge with a 10-15% price reduction, but this was later contradicted by Samsung's local office that the price reduction was based on the usage of the fridge for 4.5 years. The complainant added that his attempts to resolve the issue also went futile, as a result of which he was constrained to approach the Commission seeking refund of Rs. 72,000/- for the fridge or replacement for the same, and a total compensation of Rs. 40,000/- for the mental agony, undue hardship and service delay faced by him. The 1st Opposite Party argued that the alleged defects in the Samsung refrigerator did not essentially constitute manufacturing defects, and that the same could be due to mishandling or other reasons that could be repaired. It was stated that despite the damages having occurred outside the warranty period and being irreparable, the service centre had offered a depreciated refund as a goodwill gesture, yet the complainant still demanded 85-90% refund. Samsung (1st Opposite Party) relied upon the decision in C.N. Anantharam v. Fiat India Ltd. to buttress the argument that manufacturers could not be compelled to replace a product when there is no manufacturing defect. The complainant however, disputed the same and questioned why the 1st Opposite Party would take the fridge for service, falsely claim it to be repaired, and bill the complainant, if they believed it to be irreparable. He further questioned why the 1st Opposite Party would only fill up the gas, knowing there was a gas leak, without performing the necessary repairs, and then charge for the purported repairs. The 2nd Opposite Party, the athorized representative of the 1st Opposite Party, averred that the complainant had purchased the refrigerator in 2016, but filed the complaint only in 2021, thus making the complaint time-barred. It was submitted that the complainant had used the fridge for 5 years without any issues, before alleging the defect in 2021. It was added that after purchase, it was for the manufacturer to provide warranty and after-sales service, and relied upon Hindustan Motors v. Shivakumar & Ors. to contend that a dealer would not be liable for manufacturing defects. The Commission discerned that post-sale, the obligations pertaining to warranty and after-sales services lie with the manufacturer, which aspect the complainant was unaware of. It was added that the 2nd Opposite Party, which is the dealer, also did not provide any such services. It further ascertained that the findings of the Independent Expert Commissioner confirmed that the refrigerator was not repairable due to concealed condenser coils, suggesting that the defects did not result from normal customer...

Manufacturers Intentionally Withholding Necessary Spare Parts Of Products Unfair Trade Practice: Kerala Consumer Forum

Navya Benny

Tags