MAPUSA
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has held a retailer guilty for deficiency of service and ordered him to pay full price of the defective product to the consumer.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North Goa directed a retailer to pay Rs 8,600, the price of a defective cooler, at 9 percent interest from the date of purchase and in addition Rs 20,000 as compensation for causing inconvenience and mental agony to a consumer (complainant).
The complainant, Xama Pawookar said that she had purchased a cooler from the retailer, City Circuit, on March 31, 2014, but the product started giving her problems from day one.
She said the cooler was making a lot of noise and the LED panel was not functioning from the date of purchase.
Further she called the retailer several times to remind him about the faulty cooler and even visited his shop a few times. She also called the customer care number to lodge her complaint but all her effort fell on deaf ears.
In his defence, the retailer said that he was not the manufacturer of the product but merely a retailer.
He further said the complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the warranty and problems during the warranty period were to be taken up with the authorized service centre of the manufacturer.
In its order the forum president, S Vales and members Varsha Bale and A De Oliveira observed that since the retailer sold the product to the complainant he was answerable for defects of the product, and whether he was a dealer or retailer did not matter.
It further pointed out that the retailer was running away from his responsibility by stating that detailed instructions to operate the product was required to be read and understood by a user/complainant.
“Even if there are instructions on the manual, the customers should be explained the operations of the product by the dealer/retailer as even if the customer can read instruction he or she may not be able to follow it properly,” the forum said.
On the retailer’s contention that being retail sellers they were not liable for repairs and once product was sold their role was over, the forum said, in that case the retailer should have displayed a board outside his shop that they will not be liable for after sale service.
“A retailer cannot run away from their liability by shifting their responsibility on manufacturer. They are also equally liable for not providing proper service and answerable for defects in the product,” the forum ruled.
The court said the retailer and manufacturer failed to rectify the manufacturing defect of the cooler and therefore the complainant had to be compensated for the inconvenience, financial loss and the mental agony suffered by her.
