Hydraulics Company fined for faulty machine
Legal File: Hydraulics Company fined for faulty machine
When a product or a service is not satisfactory, and if a consumer decides to pursue the case legally, the manufacturers tend to make attempts to obfuscate the matter. Just some of the contentions put forth in courts are:
a) Consumer court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the complaint: this justification is particularly used by banks and telephony companies
b) The complainant is not a consumer: Hospitals routinely use this argument and the alibi of providing free medical service, to get out of medical negligence cases
c) The defects in the product or deficiency in service cannot be proved: for a consumer to prove that a product is defective; is fairly difficult. Manufacturers often blame the consumer for having not used the product properly, or for making continual complaints that are without much merit.
A hydraulics company based in Devas, Madhya Pradesh, used all of the above contentions to prove its points against a consumer who had purchased their machine for their construction material business.
Leena Maloo, along with her husband Sanjay Maloo, supplied construction material as part of their business in Seoni district of Madhya Pradesh. They purchased a loading machine from Neo Hydraulics for their business, by loading a sum of Rs 4,95,000. Although the machine came with a one year guarantee, it started to have day-to-day problems and would stop working during operations. The company convinced the consumer that the machine was sound by saying that because of the recondition, transmission and new type of design, normally in the first year, some problems do arise and the machine stops working of and on and after one year, when the driver gets trained and experienced, the loader starts working without casual stoppage. The company offered to co-operate with the consumer and agreed to send a mechanic to the customer to remove the defects at its own cost. Neo Hydraulics also agreed that after the starting of the hot mix plant operations of the Maloos, it would depute a person for a period of one month to ensure that the machine does not stop suddenly. The company, however, did nothing to remove the defects from the machine.
After waiting for a period of three months, the Maloos issued a legal notice to Neo Hydraulics, which the company refused to accept. Thereafter, the customers filed a complaint before the District Forum, Seoni for grant of Rs 4,95,000 as the price of the machine along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, Rs 75,000 as compensation, and Rs 2,500 towards legal expenses and costs.
The company filed its reply to the complaint taking the objection that (i) the company was never informed by the customer about the defects in the machine; (ii) the defects, if any, occurred because the machine was not operated upon by a trained driver; (iii) the machine was supplied to the complainant in Dewas and, therefore, the District Forum at Seoni did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint; (iv) the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had purchased the machine for commercial purpose. Therefore, the complainant would not fall under the category of a 'consumer'.
The district forum did not find any merit in these arguments and dismissed the complaint. The Sate Commission had the same opinion. When the company filed an appeal with the National Commission, the National Commission took note of the all the facts and said that it was of the opinion that the machine did not function properly right from its inception and a defective machine was supplied to the consumer by the company. There was deficiency in service by the company as it failed to get the machine rectified in spite of having assured the complainant that it would do so. Apart from this, the petitioner refused to accept the legal notice sent by the complainant. The explanation given by the Managing Director of the petitioner that he was out of Dewas hardly justifies the refusal to accept the Legal Notice as the same had been sent in the name of the company. The plea taken by the Managing Director that, in his absence the company remained closed completely and no person was available for receiving the letters, cannot be accepted. It was clearly an after-thought, said the National Commission.
The Commission directed the petitioner to deposit Rs 2, 50,000 with the Commission.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi, Revision Petition no
2337 of 2006,(from the order dated 22.7.06
in Appeal No.947/05 of the State
Commission, M.P.); Neo Hydraulics versus
Smt. Leena Sanjay Maloo
To read more log on to www.consumer-voice.org
About the Author:
Consumer VOICE was founded by teachers and students at the University of Delhi in the beginning of the academic year 1983-84. Till mid 1986, Consumer VOICE functioned as an unregistered voluntary consumer association.
On 28 June 1986, it was registered as a Public Charitable Trust with noted jurist, Justice (retd.) V.M. Tarkunde and Prof. P.K. Ghosh of the Delhi School of Economics as founder donors and Dr. Sri Ram Khanna and Mr Rajan Karanjawala as Trustees.
In 1988 the Dept of Company Affairs Govt. of India accorded recognition to Consumer VOICE under the MRTP Act. The trust has since been granted exemption under section 80-G of the Income Tax Act and, donations made to the Trust are exempt from Tax. However the organization does not accept donations from private enterprise in order to ensure objectivity, or from individuals except when the donor is genuinely committed to espouse the cause of consumer protection.
As one of its first consumer-rights initiative, VOICE filed a suit against the 'Wills Made for Each Other' tobacco campaign, as it was monopolistic and discriminated against consumers who did not smoke. VOICE also challenged television manufacturers which were selling colour television sets at a premium to consumers during the Asiad Games.
In 1997, VOICE started to publish Consumer VOICE, a bi-monthly magazine that focused on bringing consumers information on product performance. 'Voltage Stabilisers' were one of the first product tests to be published in Consumer VOICE magazine.
The publisher of Consumer VOICE magazine since 1999 it is currently working in close co-ordination with the Dept of Consumer Affairs, Govt of India, on a comparative product testing project. The project aims to test a wide range of products most commonly used by Indian consumers in NABL-accredited laboratories. The test results are then published in Consumer VOICE magazine.