Seventy-One Days Without a Washing Machine
Anita Kumari bought a 7 kg fully automatic washing machine for ₹31,000 from a dealer in Muzaffarpur on 12 January, with a two-year warranty. Within five weeks the drum began leaking and staining clothes. The dealer's technician visited four times, replaced a seal, and then told her the machine had been 'damaged by voltage fluctuation', which the warranty excludes. The service centre in Patna kept the machine for 71 days and returned it still leaking. The dealer says the manufacturer is responsible for service; the manufacturer's call centre says the dealer sold a demonstration piece and the sale is not covered. Anita has the invoice, the warranty card, four service job sheets and photographs of stained clothes. She wants her money back, ₹20,000 for ruined clothes and the cost of repeated trips to Patna. She is unsure whether she must file in Patna or Muzaffarpur, and whether a ₹31,000 claim is worth approaching a commission at all.
1. Identify the consumer rights violated and the unfair practices disclosed, and state who should be made opposite parties.
Read the worked answer
Rights violated:
- Right to safety - a leaking drum that stains clothes is a defect affecting safe use.
- Right to be informed - if a demonstration piece was sold as new, the buyer was denied a material fact at the point of sale.
- Right to be heard - four technician visits and 71 days in a service centre is not a response.
- Right to seek redressal - the dealer and manufacturer are each shifting blame to the other.
- Right to consumer education is engaged too: she needs to know the remedy does not depend on which of the two is 'at fault'.
Unfair practices: selling a demonstration piece without disclosure, if that is proved, is an unfair trade practice; a warranty clause used to deny a defect without evidence is a restrictive interpretation of the warranty; and a 71-day repair is deficiency in service.
Opposite parties: name both the dealer and the manufacturer (and the service centre if separately run). Under the Act a trader is answerable for the goods sold, and the manufacturer is answerable for a manufacturing defect and for product liability. Naming both prevents the ping-pong she has already suffered.
2. Advise on the correct forum and territorial jurisdiction, the reliefs to claim, and whether the small amount makes the complaint pointless.
Read the worked answer
Pecuniary jurisdiction. As revised by the 2021 rules, the District Commission hears claims up to ₹50 lakh, the State Commission from ₹50 lakh to ₹2 crore, and the National Commission above ₹2 crore. Her claim of about ₹51,000 plus compensation is comfortably within the District Commission.
Territorial jurisdiction. She may file where the opposite party resides or carries on business, or where the cause of action arose. The dealer's shop in Muzaffarpur satisfies both, so she does not have to travel to Patna. Filing locally is the practical advantage of the Act.
Limitation. Two years from the date of the defect or the deficient service; she is well within it.
Cost. No fee is payable for claims valued up to ₹5 lakh under the 2020 rules, and she can appear in person without a lawyer.
Reliefs to claim: replacement or refund of ₹31,000; compensation for the ruined clothes and travel; compensation for mental agony; interest; and costs. She must attach the invoice, warranty card, four job sheets, photographs and a written complaint. The 'small amount' is not a bar - the Act is designed for exactly this claim.
3. The dealer's defence is that the manufacturer is liable and the damage came from voltage fluctuation, which the warranty excludes. Explain how the commission is likely to approach this and what she should plead.
Read the worked answer
Two defences, both weak as framed.
'The manufacturer is liable, not me.' The buyer's contract of sale is with the dealer. A trader who sells goods is answerable for defects, and the dealer cannot redirect the consumer to a third party; if the dealer believes the manufacturer is responsible, he can seek indemnity in the same proceeding. Joining both opposite parties is precisely to stop this deflection.
'Voltage fluctuation is excluded.' The burden of establishing an exclusion rests on the party relying on it. A bare assertion after four failed repairs does not discharge that burden; the sequence - defect within five weeks, seal replaced, still leaking after 71 days - supports a defect existing at the time of sale. If the machine was a demonstration piece, the dealer had a duty to disclose it, and non-disclosure is itself an unfair trade practice.
What she should plead: the dates and each repair, the 71 days of deprivation of the product, the dealer's refusal to replace, the manufacturer's allegation of a demonstration sale as an admission that the machine was not new, and a prayer for refund, compensation and costs. Keep every job sheet and any written or WhatsApp communication - contemporaneous documents decide such cases.