Regulation needed to get consumers refund for faulty products

New Delhi: Despite a law protecting consumers against defective goods, getting a replacement or a refund for such goods has become an extremely uphill task for consumers

New Delhi: Despite a law protecting consumers against defective goods, getting a replacement or a refund for such goods has become an extremely uphill task for consumers.

HT Image

Whether it is an automobile or a household appliance, a newly purchased product should come out of the factory only after it is thoroughly checked for its performance. And when a consumer buys that product, it should work flawlessly, satisfactorily, without a hitch. In the rarest of rare cases where the product is found to have a flaw or a defect, the manufacturer should immediately give a defect-free replacement. That is how the consumer’s right to defect-free goods should work.

However, certain ambiguity in the Consumer Protection Act, conservative and often contradictory interpretation of the law by the consumer courts , miserly computation of compensation and the inordinate delays in the process of adjudication , have all combined to make it next to impossible for consumers to get justice vis-à-vis defective goods.

Another related problem is in respect of expensive consumer durables which pack up in just about six months or a year. In many such cases, after several attempts at repair , the manufacturer offers a replacement at about 50 per cent of the cost of the brand new product. Given the fact that these products are supposed to last about ten to fifteen years , such offer is most unfair. In fact the short life span of a home appliance is an indication of its poor quality. Yet, in the absence of a standard fixing the minimum life cycle for these goods or the percentage of depreciation over the years, consumers do not have a strong bargaining point.

The Consumer Protection Act gives consumer courts the option of directing the manufacturer to either repair the defective product or give a replacement or a refund. Manufacturers are most reluctant to replace defective goods and consumer courts too in most cases order repairs. Why should a consumer accept a repaired product after paying the full price for a new one?

So what consumers need is a regulation under the CP Act to pave the way for refund or replacement of flawed products and adequate compensation for the harassment undergone on account of such goods. So first and foremost, the regulation should make it obligatory on the part of the manufacturer/retailer to replace a product that fails to perform satisfactorily .

Secondly, even though the definition of ‘defect’ under the CP Act is very broad and includes any fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality , there is no consistency in the way the consumer courts have interpreted it and this needs to be rectified through the regulation.

A recent order of the apex consumer court pertaining to a complaint about a dishwasher is an example. While the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directed the manufacturer and the dealer to refund the cost of the machine and pay compensation to the consumer, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held a contrary view and set aside the order of the lower consumer court.

The apex consumer court in turn pointed out that neither the district nor the state commission had recorded any conclusive finding of an inherent defect in the machine! On the ground that the consumer had used the new machine for ten months and the stand-by machine for several years during the course of the case, the Commission ordered a compensation of only ₹10,000 and costs of ₹5000 and said the substitute machine need not be returned by the consumer. And this battle , from the time the consumer first filed the complaint, lasted ten years.(Sangeeta Singh Vs IFB Industries, RP no 598 of 2019 )

If a machine fails to perform the way it should, does it not constitute a fault, imperfection or shortcoming in the quality? Why should there be further proof of ‘defect’? The CP Act makes it clear that a product needs to be tested in a laboratory only if the defect cannot be determined without such a test. Yet, there is a lot of confusion on what constitutes proof of defect, with consumer courts taking divergent views. There is an urgent need for clarification here.

Finally, unless consumer courts stick to the time-limit prescribed in the law for adjudication of complaints , there would be no consumer justice. In fact complaints whose value is less than ₹2 lakh should be heard without lawyers, without adjournments and in one hearing.