A Failed Safety Valve and the Question of Whom to Sue
In January, Sunita Devi of Darbhanga bought a five-litre pressure cooker for ₹2,600 from an authorised dealer in the town. The printed warranty card promised two years against manufacturing defects. Forty days later the safety valve failed while she was cooking dal; hot liquid sprayed over her right arm and she needed treatment costing ₹1,800 at the local clinic. She missed six days of work as a daily-wage tailor, losing about ₹450 a day. She wrote twice to the dealer, who said the matter was the company's responsibility. The company's service centre in Patna kept the cooker for three months and returned it unrepaired, saying the model was out of production. Her letters and courier cost ₹600. She has the original bill, the warranty card, the clinic receipts and the service centre's acknowledgement slip. Her monthly family income is about ₹22,000 and she wants the matter settled quickly without a lawyer.
1. Identify the commission where Sunita should file her complaint, explain how its pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction is decided, and state the time limit.
Read the worked answer
Forum: the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Darbhanga.
Pecuniary jurisdiction under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is decided by the value of the goods or services paid as consideration plus the compensation claimed:
- District Commission - up to ₹50 lakh
- State Commission - above ₹50 lakh up to ₹2 crore
- National Commission - above ₹2 crore
Here the consideration is only ₹2,600 and even a generous claim including medical costs, lost wages and compensation for pain would stay far below ₹50 lakh, so the District Commission is the correct forum. Filing before the State or National Commission would lead to the complaint being returned.
Territorial jurisdiction: she may file where the opposite party actually works or where the cause of action arose, and the 2019 Act additionally allows the complainant to file where she resides or personally works for gain. Darbhanga is therefore proper even if the company's office is elsewhere.
Time limit: within two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. The cause of action here arose at the latest when the service centre returned the cooker unrepaired after three months, so she is well within time - but she should file now rather than wait further.
2. List the reliefs Sunita can claim and compute the quantifiable part of her claim, explaining which items are recoverable and which would be double counting.
Read the worked answer
Reliefs available to her:
- Removal of the defect or replacement of the cooker with a new one, or a refund of the price.
- Compensation for loss or injury suffered as a consequence of the defect.
- Payment of a reasonable amount for the cost of the proceedings.
- Compensation for mental agony and harassment caused by the dealer's and service centre's conduct.
- An order that the defective batch be withdrawn from sale, if other buyers are affected.
Quantifiable claim:
| Head | Amount |
|---|---|
| Refund of price paid | ₹2,600 |
| Medical treatment | ₹1,800 |
| Lost wages, 6 days × ₹450 | ₹2,700 |
| Letters and courier | ₹600 |
| Total | ₹7,700 |
To this she may add a non-quantified sum for pain, harassment and the three months her cooker was withheld, which the Commission assesses on evidence.
Avoiding double counting: she cannot claim both a refund of ₹2,600 and a replacement cooker, because each restores the same loss. Wages lost are recoverable because they flow directly from the injury and she has clinic records; a claim for a new refrigerator or for income she never earned would fail for want of a causal link. She should attach the bill, warranty card, medical receipts and the service centre's slip as evidence - no lawyer is needed, since she may appear in person.
3. The dealer argues that he is only a seller and that Sunita must chase the manufacturer. Evaluate this defence.
Read the worked answer
The defence is weak, both in law and in fairness.
In law: the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 introduced a separate concept of product liability. A complaint may be filed against a product manufacturer, a product service provider or a product seller, and each may be made liable for the defect or deficiency. The dealer sold a cooker that failed within forty days, well inside a two-year warranty that he issued and displayed. He cannot treat himself as a mere bystander after taking the price. The service centre's three-month delay and its refusal to repair is itself a deficiency in service, independent of the manufacturing defect.
Where the dealer may succeed: a seller can escape liability if he proves that the defect arose from something the consumer did after the sale - misuse, alteration, or use contrary to instructions. On these facts that defence is unavailable, because a safety valve failing during ordinary cooking points to a manufacturing or quality-control defect.
Practical reasoning: Sunita should implead both the dealer and the manufacturer in one complaint. This prevents each from blaming the other, keeps the case in her own district, and makes the order enforceable against whichever party has assets. She should also mention the dealer's refusal to act, since that conduct supports her claim for compensation for harassment.