|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE Consumer Protection Act gives every person the right to defect-free goods, and flowing from that, the right to a refund or a replacement in case the purchase turns out to be defective. However, manufacturers and dealers often do not respect these rights, forcing people to wage a long legal battle before courts. Consumer courts are the upholders of the rights given under the law. Yet, there is considerable ambiguity and inconsistency in the way they look at the issue. Take the recent order of the court pertaining to a defective car. Here, first the district consumer forum in Ranchi held that the defects in the car were of a minor nature and, therefore, the complainant was not entitled to a refund or a replacement, but only rectification of the defects. The state consumer disputes redressal commission, however, held a different view. It’s verdict was that since the defects could not or had not been be rectified, and as a result, the vehicle remained off the road, the natural presumption was that the vehicle had inherent defects. Even if one were to assume that there were no manufacturing defects, the fact remained that the car gave trouble continuously, and was in the workshop most of the time. Under the circumstances, the only way to compensate the client was through a refund or a replacement, the state commission concluded. The national consumer disputes redressal commission, however, disagreed with this view and said the car only suffered from minor defects, which were not manufacturing defects. So the demand for a replacement was not justified (Sushila Automobiles vs Dr Birendra Narain Prasad, RP No 1652 of 2006). The commission also quoted the case of Surendra Kumar Jain vs R.C. Bhargava, wherein it had held a similar view and said that even though the new car had been taken to the workshop 11 times, the defects were only minor in nature and, therefore, the demand for a replacement was not justified. Now this raises a pertinent question. If a brand new vehicle fails to give trouble-free service, and the consumer is forced to take it for repairs constantly, is he/she not entitled to a defect-free replacement? Considering that the very purpose of buying a new vehicle is to enjoy trouble-free service, why should a person accept a vehicle that behaves more like a used car than a brand new car? Whether it is a major or a minor defect, so long as it impairs the proper use of the car, and the manufacturer is unable to resolve the problem, the client should get a replacement. Otherwise, the word "new" will have no meaning, and so also the consumer’s right to a defect-free product. Interestingly in the case of R.Raja Rao vs M/s Mysore Auto Agencies (FA No 455 of 1997, decided in February 2006), the national commission had expressed a similar view and held that if the person who buys a new vehicle is forced to hand it over constantly for repairs, he is entitled to a replacement or a refund. "The reason being, the defective vehicle would not give the satisfaction of a new vehicle", the commission had said. In this context I would like to mention the Lemon Laws in the US that clearly define what constitutes a defective vehicle or a "lemon" as it is described, requiring a manufacturer to replace it or refund its cost to the consumer. Such a definition could well eliminate ambiguity vis-`E0-vis defective goods and hold the manufacturers fully accountable for defective goods. Under the New Jersey Lemon Law, for example, a new vehicle is presumed to be a lemon if it has one or more defects that continue to exist after three attempts at repairs, or if the vehicle has been out of service for a total of 20 cumulative calendar days.
|
||
|
|
||
