Seller has to replace defective product if repair isn’t possible

The ministry of home affairs had invited bids on behalf of the National Security Guard for supply of the NiCd batteries for use in VHF radio sets. The tender document gave specifications about the discharge and recharge time, and life in terms of the number of recharge cycles. Projects And Equipment Services submitted a bid in which it undertook to supply the batteries and provide free aftersales service for 12 months.Its bid was accepted and the firm supplied 1,303 batteries manufactured by Hindustan General Industries.
Upon usage, it was found some of the batteries were getting discharged fast, and not recharging properly. A joint inspection revealed this was due to thin connecting strips, defective foil and poor quality of terminals. The defective 1,296 batteries were sent to the manufacturer’s factory. While 532 batteries could be suitably modified, the remaining 764 batteries could not be rectified. Yet these were neither replaced nor the money refunded. So a complaint was filed before the Delhi State Commission.
The firm contested, saying delivery was taken after inspection, and payment was released after the quality had been found acceptable. The firm argued the problem due to improper usage and defective chargers. It contended modification and repairs were offered merely as a goodwill gesture.
The Delhi State Commission directed the firm to refund Rs 5,23,517 toward the price of defective batteries and also awarded compensation of Rs 20,000. Projects And Equipment Services challenged this order.
The National Commission observed defects were admitted in the correspondence, and the firm had given an assurance to repair and modify the batteries suitably. It held this was proof enough to hold the batteries did not conform to the prescribed specifications. The Commission refused to believe the firm’s allegation that the batteries were damaged due to mishandling and improper use, as no evidence was produced.
The firm tried to argue the specifications prescribed were incorrect and technically impossible to give the desired performance. The Commission observed if it was not possible to meet the specifications, the firm ought not to have submitted its bid.
The firm claimed it was merely a seller and could not be held liable for a manufacturing defect. This argument was also rejected, considering it to be an issue between the firm and manufacturer.
By its order of December 6, delivered by Justice V K Jain, the National Commission upheld the order of the State Commission, and dismissed the firm’s appeal with further costs of Rs 25,000.
Conclusion: Aftersales service would require a defective product, which cannot be repaired, to be replaced.
(The author is a consumer activist and has won the Govt.of India’s National Youth Award for Consumer Protection. His email is jehangir.gai.columnist@outlook.in )