Failure To Mention The Manufacturer's Name On The Invoice Is A Significant Lapse In Complying With Trade Practice Standards And Consumer Protection; Ernakulam District Commission

Brief Facts of the Case

The complaint is filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant was convinced by the opposite party's staff during the purchase that the Trafford sheet being sold was the company's product, with a 15-year guarantee. The staff also asserted that the sheet was waterproof and resistant to rust. Relying on these assurances, the complainant made the purchase for a roof installation, but the products were substandard, causing financial losses. The complainant seeks legal intervention to obtain replacements or refunds and hold the opposite party accountable for their actions.

Contentions of the opposition

The Counsel for the opposing party contended that the complaint was flawed for not including all necessary parties. They challenged most of the complainant's statements and denied providing a 15-year guarantee or marketing the sheets as waterproof and rust-resistant. They identified themselves as a small retail store rather than the manufacturer and stated they had purchased the sheets from a wholesaler. The opposing party argued that the complainant had knowingly bought the products without a guarantee, choosing the cheapest option available. They claim that wear and tear is to be expected and reject any prior requests for replacement. The opposing party dismisses the claims as lacking substance and denies the complainant's assertions regarding financial loss or unfair trade practices.

Observations by the Commission

The bench highlighted the Consumer Protection Act 2019, which defines six fundamental rights aimed at protecting consumers. These rights are expressly detailed in Section 2(9) of the Act and include the "right to be informed" and the "right to seek redressal." They provide consumers with comprehensive information about the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard, and price of goods, products, or services and acts as a protective measure against dishonest trade practices. In this scenario, the bench emphasized that the opposing party's omission of the manufacturer's name on the invoice is a notable violation of trade practice standards and consumer protection as it prevented the complainant from knowing who to contact in case of a problem with the manufacturing good. Furthermore, the commission relied upon the decision in Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta to grant relief to the complainant.

The bench mandated the opposite party to refund Rs 2,00,000 as the amount spent by the complainant on the roof installations, including labour and other related expenses. The bench also instructed the party to pay Rs 30,000 to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony caused and Rs 10,000 towards the cost of the proceedings.

Case Title: K.K. Joy vs. J.S Cube Metals

Case Number: C.C. No. 226/2020

Click Here To Read/Download The Order