consumer protection act 1986

  Donoghue v. Stevenson  The honourable court held when a drink was offered to the consumer with a decomposed snail in it that caused health injury to the consumer, the consumer could hold the manufacturer of the product liable even though the contract existed between the consumer and the seller.

Ans: CLAUS H. HENNINGSEN AND HELEN HENNINGSEN, PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS ANDCROSS-APPELLANTS, v. BLOOMFIELD MOTORS, INC., AND CHRYSLER CORPORATION,DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS AND CROSSRESPONDENTS. Supreme Court of New Jersey. (May 9, 1960). The Plaintiff bought a car from a dealer and the car started to malfunction within 10 days of delivery which resulted in the Plaintiff’s wife suffering injuries, it was held by honourable Supreme Court of New Jersey that the Plaintiff had to get remedy because it was a breach of the implied warranty of safety. The fact that it was the plaintiff’s wife and not the plaintiff who got hurt is no excuse as the product liability extended to every foreseeable user.  

Ans:  Ashoke Khan v. Abdul Karim Allahabad High Court Aug 30, 2005 The Allahabad High Court further, considering the provisions of Section 226 of the Contract Act, it cannot be said that agent or dealer is not jointly and severally liable for the defects in the ‘power tiller’, as the contract is through the dealer. Therefore, privity of contract is with him. It is true that normally such liability with regard to the manufacturing defects is to be borne by the manufacturer. But, that would not mean that the dealer is absolved from joint and several liability. As held in the aforesaid case, the District Forum shall ensure execution expeditiously and immediately, if necessary, by making the petitioner to pay initially and, then, it will be for the petitioner to claim reimbursement from the manufacturer (Respondent No. 2). In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed. 

Hindustan Motors Ltd. And Another v. N. Siva Kumar And Another Supreme Court Of India Aug 20, 1999 The honourable Supreme Court held that we are left with no alternative except to direct that the order passed by the State Commission for the refund of Rs 1,77,200 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the complaint till actual payment, together with a sum of Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental pain and agony, be complied with as we are fully satisfied, on the facts of the case, that the appellants had sold a defective car to the respondent and the offer of the appellants for repairs including replacement of a new engine block will not be a substitute for a new car which the respondent legally deserves to be supplied. The order of the State Commission for payment of Rs 3000 towards costs is also maintained. The observations of the National Commission to the following effect: “An apprehension has been expressed by the dealer that the burden of this may ultimately...

Ans:  C.N.Anantharam vs M/S Fiat India Ltd.& Ors.Etc.Etc on 24 November, 2010 The honourable Supreme Court held that it appears that apart from the complaint relating to noise from the engine and the gear box, there was no other major defect which made the vehicle incapable of operation, particularly when the engine was replaced with a new one. However, in addition to the directions given by the National Commission, the honourable Supreme Court directs that if the independent technical expert is of the opinion that there are inherent manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the petitioner will be entitled to refund of the price of the vehicle and the lifetime tax and EMI along with interest @ 12% per annum and costs, as directed by the State Commission .

Maruti Udyog Ltd vs Susheel Kumar Gabgotra & Anr on 29 March, 2006 The honourable Supreme Court held that respondent no.1 taking the vehicle in question to the authorized service centre of the appellant at Jammu within three weeks, the defective part that is clutches assembly shall be replaced. Respondent no.1 shall not be required to pay any charge for the replacement. In addition, respondent no.1 shall be entitled to receive a consolidated sum of Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand only) from the appellant for cost of travel to Karnal which admittedly was wrongly advised by the appellant, for the inconvenience caused to respondent no.1 on account of the acts of the appellant and the respondent no.2 and the cost of litigation.

 Ans:  Avinash Yadav v. Wonderchef District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Aug 1, 2019 The honourable court held that this complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly or severally to either replace the defective product i.e. gas chullah in question with a new one or to refund its price subject to the return of the defective product in question by the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The complainant is also permitted compensation alongwith litigation expenses of Rs. 5500/- against the opposite parties. Ordered accordingly. Announced 01.08.2019. x

Ans: Res Ispa loquitur means that the thing speaks for itself.  Negligence means want of proper care or carelessness.  Essentials of negligence: 1. Defendent was under a legal duty to take care. 2. Defendent was guilty of the breach of that duty. 3. The plaintiff suffered damage. Res ispa loquitur is an exception of negligence of law of torts  Essentials of the maxim: 1. Accident could not ordinarily occur unless the defendent had been negligent the law. 2. The plaintiff suffered damage. 3. This maxim is not a rule of law. It is a rule of evidence benefiting the plaintiff by not requiring him to prove the negligence. 4. Case law: Byrne Vs. Boadle,  1863 In this case, the plaintiff was going on a public street when a barrel fell upon him from the defendant's warehouse window. Want of care on the part of defendent was presumed and it was for him to show that the same was not for want of care on his part , for barrels do not usually fall out from windows unless there is...

Ans: It is defined in section 2(d) of Indian Contract Act, 1872. When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise. x

Ans: The doctrine of privity of contract is a common law principle which provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations upon anyone who is not a party to that contract.

Ans: Solidaire India Ltd. & Another v/s K. Indira     Appeal No. 358 of 1992     Decided On, 28 December 1993 At, Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram. In this case, a television set was bought and was serviced. Just after one week, the television stopped functioning and throughout a period, 11 repairs had to be done. This was considered as a deficiency of service and hence the consumer could claim compensation as per judgment of Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Thiruvananthapuram.

Ans:  Harmohinder Singh v/s Anil Sehgal & Another     Revision Petition Nos. 949 & 955 of 1996     Decided On, 23 March 1999     At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC It has been mentioned that wherein a dealer of air conditioners wanted to avoid liability after selling a second-hand defective air conditioner by stating that he was not its manufacturer. The seller was prevented from doing so and made liable for the same by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.