A Defective Solar Inverter and a Marketplace That Says It Is Only an Intermediary
A schoolteacher in Silchar buys a 5 kW solar inverter for ₹68,000 from an online marketplace. The seller's listing says '1-year replacement warranty'. After three months the inverter stops working. The seller says the warranty is the manufacturer's responsibility and sends a service centre address 210 km away. The marketplace says it is only an intermediary and has already paid the seller. The teacher paid ₹8,000 for a temporary diesel generator and lost ₹12,000 of subsidy because the inverter was not functional during inspection. The manufacturer's local dealer says the inverter was 'parallel imported' and is not covered. The teacher has the invoice, warranty card, and chat records. She wants to file a complaint but is unsure where and against whom, and whether she can claim the generator cost and lost subsidy.
1. Identify the consumer rights violated and the possible opposite parties in a complaint.
Read the worked answer
Rights violated.
- Right to safety - a solar inverter that fails in three months is unsafe and unreliable for the purpose sold.
- Right to be informed - the listing promised a one-year replacement warranty, but the dealer later claimed the product was 'parallel imported'. The buyer was not told this before purchase.
- Right to seek redressal - the seller passed the complaint to a distant service centre, and the marketplace refused responsibility.
- Right to be heard - the buyer's complaint was not properly addressed by the seller, marketplace, or manufacturer.
Opposite parties. The teacher can include the seller (who sold the goods and made the warranty representation), the manufacturer (product liability for a defective product), and the marketplace (if it failed its obligations under the e-commerce rules). Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a marketplace can be treated as an intermediary with safe harbour only if it complies with the rules, such as displaying seller details, appointing a grievance officer, and acting on complaints. If it simply says 'we are only an intermediary', that is not a complete defence.
The teacher should keep the invoice, warranty card, chats, and the dealer's refusal in writing. She should send a written complaint to all three before filing.
2. Determine the appropriate consumer commission based on pecuniary jurisdiction and the limitation period. Explain the reasoning.
Read the worked answer
Pecuniary jurisdiction. The invoice value is ₹68,000. The teacher also claims ₹8,000 for the generator, ₹12,000 for the lost subsidy, and possibly compensation for mental agony and costs. Even if all these are added, the claim is well below ₹50 lakh. Under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has jurisdiction up to ₹50 lakh. The State Commission handles claims above ₹50 lakh up to ₹2 crore, and the National Commission handles claims above ₹2 crore. So the District Commission is the correct forum.
Territorial jurisdiction. The teacher can file where she resides or works, or where the seller, manufacturer, or marketplace has an office. Filing in Silchar is convenient if the opposite parties have a branch or if the Act's residence-based rule applies.
Limitation. A complaint must be filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. The cause of action arose when the inverter failed and the seller refused to replace it, not when the inverter was bought. The teacher should not wait for a long exchange of letters. If she files late, she must ask the commission to condone the delay with reasons.
Reasoning. Jurisdiction depends on the value of the consideration paid and the compensation claimed, not on the price of a replacement inverter alone. The teacher should plead the total claim clearly.
3. Can the teacher claim the ₹8,000 generator cost and the ₹12,000 lost subsidy? Explain the test of compensation.
Read the worked answer
Test. Compensation under consumer law must be just and proper. It can cover direct loss, consequential loss that flows naturally from the defect, mental agony, and litigation cost. But the loss must be proved and must not be remote or unrelated to the defect.
Generator cost of ₹8,000. This is likely recoverable if the teacher can show that the inverter failed, that the generator was hired as a temporary substitute, and that the amount was actually paid. It is a mitigation cost flowing from the defect. She should produce the generator hire receipt and show why a generator was necessary.
Lost subsidy of ₹12,000. This is recoverable only if the teacher proves that the subsidy was sanctioned or would certainly have been received, and that the inspection failed solely because the inverter was defective. If the subsidy was merely an application or conditional on other approvals, the claim is weaker because the loss is not certain. She should produce the subsidy scheme documents, inspection report, and correspondence.
Practical advice. The teacher should claim replacement or refund of ₹68,000, the generator cost, the subsidy loss if documented, and compensation for mental agony and costs. She should not inflate the claim without evidence. The commission may award a reasonable sum after examining the invoices and the warranty terms.