|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When
a product that you buy turns out to be defective, you obviously hold not
only the manufacturer, but also the dealer from whom you purchased the
product, liable. However, dealers invariably try to escape
responsibility by pointing a finger at the manufacturer. And they have
often challenged court decisions holding them as much liable as the
manufacturer for a defective product. In the case of Harmohinder Singh
vs Anil Sehgal, for example, the State Commission rejected the plea of
the dealer that he was not responsible for the sealed compressor unit
that he had used in the air-conditioner assembled by him, because he was
not the manufacturer of the compressor. Said the State Commission:
"A dealer cannot avoid his liability simply on the ground that he
was not a manufacturer. It is his responsibility to carry out the terms
of the warranty and in turn he may involve the manufacturer in
fulfilling his obligations under the warranty." This was upheld by
the Apex Consumer Court. Similarly in the case of Alkotach Power
Industries vs K.N. Gopala Krishna Bhat, the consumer courts at the
district as well as the state level held the dealer responsible for the
false claim made on the product. This issue of the dealer’s
liability came up yet again some months ago before the Apex Consumer
Court, when a dealer challenged the decision of the lower consumer
courts asking him as well as the manufacturer to pay for a defective
power tiller purchased by a consumer, Abdul Karim. A farmer, Karim,
mortgaged his land, secured a loan of Rs 70,000 from the Mushirabad
branch of State Bank of India and bought a power tiller for Rs 80,000.
However, the tiller developed some snags and despite several attempts,
could not be repaired, forcing the farmer to eventually seek the help of
the consumer court for relief. The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
in Mushirabad directed the dealer and the manufacturer to refund the
cost of the tiller after deducting 10 per cent towards depreciation for
the use of the tiller. Aggrieved by this decision, the dealer filed an
appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed it, except to say
that the money should be paid to the bank which had loaned the amount
towards the purchase of the power tiller. The dealer then filed a
revision petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission. His contention was that a dealer cannot be held liable for
defects in goods and the responsibility for such defects rested only
with the manufacturer. In support of this, he quoted an order of the
Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd vs N. Sivakumar,
wherein it was held that only the manufacturer of the vehicle was liable
for the defects, and not the dealer. "We make it clear that for the
manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the dealer cannot be held liable.
The liability must be borne by the manufacturer," the court had
said in this case. Dismissing this contention, the National Commission
quoted a more recent judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of
Philip Mampillil vs. Premier Automobiles Ltd., wherein the court had
made it clear that the dealer or the agent would be as liable as the
manufacturer. If it was legally possible, the dealer could later recover
that money from the manufacturer, but as far as the consumer was
concerned, both were responsible, the Supreme Court said. The Apex
Consumer Court also took into consideration the provisions of Section
226 of the Contract Act, and concluded that since the purchase of the
tiller was made through the dealer, the privity of contract was with
him. It was therefore incorrect to say that the agent or the dealer was
not jointly and severally liable for the defects. So whenever you file
a complaint about a defective product, remember to name both the
retailer and the manufacturer in your complaint. That would ensure that
both will take responsibility for defective goods and deficient
services. |
