Q.Aditi purchased a high speed blender from an online retailer for ₹ 2,000. When she used it to prepare soup, it made a loud noise. It also failed to blend properly and emitted an unusual smell. She first contacted the online retailer through their toll-free helpline. They told her that they were responsible only for selling the blender and were not responsible for defects. Aditi then collected all relevant proofs such as the invoice and records of her communication etc. Then she contacted the customer service team of the manufacturer. The technical team inspected the blender and confirmed that the motor was defective. Despite this, the manufacturer neither replaced the blender, nor refunded her money. They stopped responding to Aditi's calls. Aditi was frustrated and filed a complaint against the manufacturer in the appropriate consumer court. State any three reliefs available to Aditi if the consumer court is satisfied about the defect in the high speed blender.
You're viewing a preview — the full solution, concept, methods & PYQ mapping are locked.
Start your 14-day free trial to unlock the full solution →If a consumer court finds a product defective, it can order the manufacturer to replace the product, refund the purchase price, or pay compensation for losses incurred.
Aditi's experience with the defective blender and the manufacturer's subsequent refusal to address the issue highlights a common challenge faced by consumers. In India, the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) provides a robust framework to safeguard consumer interests and ensure that consumers have avenues for redressal when they are exploited or receive defective goods or deficient services. This Act empowers consumers like Aditi to seek justice through a three-tier quasi-judicial machinery, commonly known as consumer courts or forums, established at the district, state, and national levels.
The fundamental idea behind consumer protection is to balance the power dynamic between consumers and producers/sellers. Consumers often lack the information, resources, and bargaining power of large corporations. The law steps in to ensure that consumers receive goods and services that meet expected standards of quality, safety, and performance, and that they have effective recourse when these standards are not met. Aditi, by collecting proof and approaching the consumer court, is exercising her 'Right to Seek Redressal', which is one of the key consumer rights.
In Aditi's case, the manufacturer's technical team confirmed the blender's motor was defective, yet they failed to provide a satisfactory solution. This clear admission of defect, coupled with their subsequent unresponsiveness, strengthens Aditi's complaint. If the consumer court is satisfied with the evidence presented by Aditi regarding the defect in the high-speed blender, it can issue several directives to the manufacturer to provide relief to Aditi.
Here are three significant reliefs available to Aditi:
- Replacement of the Defective Product: The court can direct the manufacturer to replace the defective high-speed blender with a new, defect-free blender of the same model or an equivalent model. This ensures Aditi receives the product she originally intended to purchase, in proper working condition, without any additional cost. …
Unlock everything free for 14 days
- Full step-by-step solutions
- Concept-first explanations
- Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.