NITISH ARUN PAI DUKLE 22 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was enacted for better protection of the

interests of consumers. The provisions of the Act came into force with effect from 15-4-87. Consumer Protection Act imposes strict liability on a manufacturer, in case of supply of defective goods by him, and a service provider, in case of deficiency in rendering of its services. The term defect and deficiency, as held in a catena of cases, are to be couched in the widest horizon of there being any kind of fault, imperfection or shortcoming. Furthermore, the standard, which is required to be maintained, in services or goods is not to be restricted to the statutory mandate but shall extend to that claimed by the trader, expressly or impliedly, in any manner whatsoever. Cases of defective goods 1) Case of computer system Telco Ltd. purchased a computer system from Mr. A Naik. The computer system was giving constant trouble and Mr. Naik was not attending it properly. Telco Ltd. filed a complaint against Mr. Naik with the National Commission. Mr. Naik contended that Telco Ltd. was not a consumer under the Act because computer system was used for commercial purposes. Telco Ltd. argued that computer system was not directly used of commercial purposes rather it was used to facilitate the work of the company. The Commission rejected the argument on the grounds that the system made part of the assets of the company, and its expenses were met by it out of business income. Thus the said purchase was a purchase for commercial purposes and Telco Ltd. was held not to be a consumer under the Act. 2) Case of photocopy machine-canon John was running a small type institute to earn his livelihood. He purchased a photocopy machine-canon NP 150. It proved defective. He sued the seller who contended that John is not a consumer under the Act as he purchased the photocopier for commercial use. The Commission held that by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the photocopier would bring large scale profits to John. It was a part of his small scale enterprise. He was construed as consumer under the Act. 3) Cases of x-ray machine Dr S Kamat the complainant who was a doctor claimed that he had purchased an x-ray machine and the same had stopped functioning within a short period of time. The supplier pleaded that the complainant was not a consumer and the x-ray machine was purchased for the purpose of his professional work and that he was making profit out of it. But the complainant claimed that it was being run by his personal skill and to earn his livelihood. The question of profit was not relevant. The question to be seen was whether the goods purchased by consumer were being used by him. The appellant had not led any evidence to the effect that the complainant was not personally using the unit. On the other hand, from the affidavit of the complainant, it was clear that the x-ray machine was used by him by his skill for earning his livelihood. Hence, he was a consumer. The supplier was directed to refund its price. 4) Case of Scooter Suresh Dalvi purchased a scooter from Bajaj Auto ltd which was in Dinesh Bhagats possession from the date of purchase. Dinesh Bhagats was using it and taking it to the seller

for repairs and service from time to time. Later on Dinesh Bhagats had a complaint regarding the scooter. He sued the seller. The seller pleaded that since Dinesh Bhagats did not buy the scooter, he was not a consumer under the Act. The Delhi State Commission held that Dinesh Bhagats, the complainant was using it with the approval of Suresh Dalvi, the buyer, and therefore he was consumer under the Act. 5) Case of Tesco v Pollard The claim was for damages for injuries caused to a 13 month old child who had opened and consumed part of the contents of a bottle of Tesco own brand dishwasher powder which was sold in a screw-top bottle with a child resistant cap. The was sold in a screw-top bottle with a child resistant cap. claimant alleged that the detachability of the cap evidenced a defect in the bottle's design. This was accepted by the trial judge, who decided that the child resistant cap design had featured in the marketing for the product and having decided to fit a child resistant cap, a consumer was entitled to expect the cap to function at least up to the standard usually applied to child resistant caps (i.e. the relevant British Standard) even though a consumer would not be aware of the actual standard. There was a legitimate public expectation that the design would conform to the British Standard, when in fact it did not. The Judge found that the design was therefore defective and that Tesco was liable both in negligence and for breach of the CPA. Deficiency in services 1) S.P. Goel presented before the Sub-Registrar a document claiming it to be a will for registration that sent it to the Collector of Stamps for action. The matter remains pending for about six years. In the meantime S.P. Goel filed a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act alleging harassment by the Sub-Registrar and Collector and prayed for compensation. The National Commission held the view that S.P. Goel was not a consumer under the CPA. Because there was no hiring of services by the complainant for consideration and because a Government official doing his duty as functionary of the State under law could not be said to be rendering a service to the complainant. [S.P. Goel v. Collector of Stamps (1995) III CPR 684 (SC)]. 2) Byford issued an advertisement that a person could enter the contest by booking a Premier Padmini car. S.S. Srivastava purchased the car and thus entered the contest. He was declared as winner of the draw and was thus entitled to the two tickets from New Delhi to New York and back. S.S. Srivastava filed a complaint alleging that the ticket was not delivered to him. The National Commission held that S.S. Srivastava was not a consumer in this context. He paid for the car and got it. Byford was not liable so far as the contract of winning a lottery was concerned. [Byford v. S.S. Srivastava (1993) II CPR 83 (NCDRC)]. 3) Tarapada Chatterjee was paying property tax for his house to the local corporation. This corporation was responsible for proper water supply to the premises under its work area. Tarapada Chatterjee raised a consumer dispute over the inadequacy of water supply by the corporation. The National Commission held that it was not a consumer dispute as water supply was made by the corporation out of its statutory duty and not by virtue of payment of taxes by Tarapada Chatterjee. - Mayor, Calcutta Municipal Corporation v. Tarapada Chatterjee (1994) 1 CPR 87 (NCDRC).

4) Shamsher Khan applied to Electricity Board for electricity connection for a flour mill. There was a delay in releasing the connection. Shamsher Khan made a complaint for deficiency in service. He was held a consumer under the Act. - Shamsher Khan v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board (1993) II CPR 6 (Raj.). 5) Asha Mehtas husband took a life insurance policy of Rs 500000/-. Before last premium fell due, he died due to cancer the claim made by Asha Mehta was not entertained for as long as 10 years With the help of minister she took up the matter in parliament and got a refund of Rs 595000/- including interest and the losses suffered. It was held that the Corporation had been highly negligent in the performance of its services.

References
http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=2450&parent_id=2439 http://ncdrc.nic.in/1_1_2.html