|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whenever you come across a defective product and want to file a complaint against the seller and the manufacturer before the consumer court, make sure that you have a certificate from an expert to back your claim. Alternatively, keep a sample that can be sent for testing by the consumer court, if necessary. Or else, you may well lose your case. A recent order of the apex consumer court drives home this point really hard. The complainant in this case, a farmer, bought 29 bags of cement to construct a water-storage tank in his field. This was in 2001. However, when the tank was filled with water, the walls of the tank just collapsed, leading eventually to the consumer filing a complaint before the consumer court, seeking compensation of Rs 1,70,000 from the dealer as well as the manufacturer of cement. If you see Section 13 (1) ( c) of the Consumer Protection Act, it mandates that where the allegation of defect in a product cannot be determined without proper analysis or testing of the goods, the District Forum should obtain a sample of the goods from the complainant and refer it to an appropriate laboratory for testing. The cost of testing is to be borne by the consumer and can be recovered if he or she wins the case. In this case, the farmer may not have had a sample of the cement, but he could have kept a sample of the collapsed wall for testing in a laboratory, but was probably unaware of the rules. It is not clear whether the District Forum suggested it at all — but the absence of testing or even a certificate from an expert became the point of contention in this case.
However, the central point made by both was that the complainant had not proved his allegation, as required under Section 13 (1) ( c )of the Consumer Protection Act. He had filed as evidence, affidavits of three people — the mason and two workers who had constructed the tank and that did not constitute expert evidence. The amicus curiae, on the other hand, argued that a farmer in a village cannot be expected to engage a technically qualified engineer and workmen for the construction of a simple water storage tank and therefore the court cannot disregard the testimony of the workmen engaged for the purpose. The commission, however, disagreed and pointed out that the provisions of Section 13 (1) (c) had not been followed — the sample had not been tested nor the testimonial of an expert provided. The affidavits of the three workmen did not carry much weight as they were not technically competent to state anything definitive about the quality of the cement used and besides, they were interested parties. It, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the consumer. (Shri Ali Mohammed Vs Swastik Cement Supplies and another, RP NO 4454 of 2010, decided on July 20, 2012). So whenever you file a complaint about a defective product, it is always better to get an expert to certify to its defects (except in cases where the service centre itself is admitting to the defects and you do not need any further proof). Where necessary, as in this case, keep a sample of the defective product and ask the consumer court to send it for testing. Remember, many consumers have lost their case only because they did not follow this procedure or provide the crucial evidence required to prove their allegation. Having said that, I must point out that this case also highlights the need for creating better consumer awareness vis-`E0-vis the consumer protection law.
|
||
|
|
||
The District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, which first heard the case, obviously did
not feel the need for any such evidence because it awarded a
compensation of Rs 10,000, besides Rs 2,500 towards the cost of cement
and Rs 1,000 as cost of litigation. And it held both the dealer and
the manufacturer liable. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, however, set aside the order of the lower consumer court,
leading to the consumer filing a revision petition before the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Since he pleaded that he could
not pursue the case before the apex consumer court on account of
financial constraints, the National Commission also appointed an
amicus curiae. While the dealer argued that he had supplied the cement
in its original packaging and there was no possibility of any defect,
the manufacturer contended that the product was made to quality
standards and had the quality seal of the Bureau of Indian Standards (ISI
mark).