Kerala Consumer Forum Calls For Action Against Manufacturers Who Deliberately Put Warranty Conditions In 'Fine Print' Which Public Can't Understand

A District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Kerala has criticised the practice of manufacturers deliberately including conditions of a product's warranty in 'fine print' which ordinary citizens are unable to comprehend.

The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. said the National Consumer Commission has already held such practice as 'unfair trade practice' and urged the regulatory bodies to take action against manufacturers who engage in such practices to harm consumers.

"The deliberate inclusion of such conditions in fine print, deliberately designed to be practically illegible, raises significant concerns regarding the manufacturers' underlying motives...Even individuals with a good education might struggle to fully understand the rules and terms set by companies and manufacturers. But what about ordinary people?" it remarked.

The Commission emphasized the importance of having clear and transparent terms in contracts, warranties, and agreements in order to protect the rights of consumers, and promote fairness in business practices.

The Commission in this case was dealing with a complaint regarding an electric scooter and batteries which were submerged during the floods in the year 2018. The opposite party, Classic Motors refused warranty coverage for the same, stating that flood damages were excluded from the warranty coverage. 

The complainant accordingly sought reimbursement of Rs. 12,550/- by the Opposite Party. 

The Opposite Party, Classic Motors, which is an authorized dealer for Hero Electric Company, submitted that when the complainant had initially reached out to the manufacturer, he had been informed that the manufacturer's warranty only covered defects arising from manufacturing and did not extend to damages caused by external factors such as floods, which had been stated in the warranty terms. Classic Motors averred that it, being the authorized dealer of Hero Electric Company, could only administer the warranty provided by the manufacturer. It thereby sought to be excluded from the present case. 

Although the Commission examined the warranty card using a magnifying lens, it could not identify any clause excluding coverage in cases of flood damage, despite the Opposite Party asserting the existence of such. 

However, taking note that the complainant had only implicated the battery dealer and excluded the battery manufacturer from the present litigation, the Commission was of the view that the complaint would have to be dismissed for non-inclusion of the party. 

It relied upon Ram Shankar Yadav V JP Associated Ltd. (2012) whereby the National Consumer Commission held that "...for any manufacturing defect in a product, it is the manufacturer and not the dealer who could be held liable". The Commission thus reasoned that it is pivotal to recognize that the primary responsibility for the replacement of the battery rests with its manufacturer

"Even if the terms of the product's warranty were to be construed in favor of the complainant, the Commission possesses the authority to direct the battery manufacturer to either replace the product or provide a refund to the consumer. This prerogative is grounded in the fact that the complainant has not impleaded the battery manufacturer as a party to this case," the Commission observed, while dismissing the complaint.