A consumer who files a complaint has to prove his case. However, there are exceptions to this rule, such as an unexplained accident occurring for no apparent reason. In such a case, defect is presumed and need not be established by the consumer.
Mangesh Telrandhe had purchased a new five-litre pressure cooker from Meghna Metals, which was manufactured by TT Pvt Ltd. It came with a 10-year guarantee. About three years after its purchase, the cooker burst and exploded. His wife Meenal, suffered several injuries including damage to her right hand, resulting in permanent disability.
Telrandhe, along with a consumer organisation, Akhil Bhartiya Grahak Panchayat, filed a complaint with the Maharashtra State Commission, alleging the accident had occurred due to a defect in the cooker. The complaint was contested by the manufacturer. The State Commission awarded a compensation of Rs 1 lakh for permanent disability, Rs 38,000 for medicine and treatment, and Rs 1,000 towards costs.
The manufacturer challenged this order before the National Commission. A technical defence raised was that the complaint filed by the husband was not maintainable as he would not have the authority to litigate on behalf of his wife. Over-ruling this, the National Commission observed that between a husband and wife there is commonality of interest and inter-dependence. Hence, the husband is entitled to complain.
The cooker was purchased for the use of the Telrandhe family, and the wife was cooking on it when it exploded and Telrandhe had to spend for the treatment. Hence, he would also be entitled to file the complaint.
The Commission further observed that a registered consumer organisation would also have the right to file the complaint on behalf of the aggrieved consumer.
The manufacturer explained that various safety devices were available in the cooker. If the whistle does not release the pressure for some reason, the rubber gasket or the safety valve would melt to release the built-up pressure. The manufacturer claimed the cooker must have burst due to Meenal's failure to take proper care while cleaning it. The National Commission concurred with the view taken by the State Commission that something had obviously gone wrong with the cooker system, which resulted in the accident. Meenal cannot be blamed due to lack of proof of misuse. There was no evidence whatsoever to substantiate the manufacturer's contention about misuse. The accident having occurred within the warranty period is a fact which speaks for itself, to establish a manufacturing defect in the cooker.
The manufacturer disputed the authenticity of the medical bills produced. The Commission observed that when the bills were given for reimbursement, no such stand had been taken. Hence, such a plea could not be accepted now. Accordingly, the Commission held that the expenses of Rs 38,000 for treatment was payable and substantiated by bills. As for the compensation of Rs 1 lakh, the doctor's certificate showed the orthopaedic handicap at 42 per cent. Considering that Meenal was a diploma holder in civil engineering and interior decorator, all of 30 with two children aged nine and four, the Commission observed the compensation awarded was on the conservative side. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed the manufacturer's appeal with further costs of Rs 1,000. This judgment is important because it recognises the common right of a husband and wife to file a consumer complaint on behalf of each other for any item purchased for use of the family. The judgment also lays down that when an explained untoward incident occurs, there is a presumption that the product was defective. In such a case, the facts speak for themselves, so the consumer is not burdened with proving and establishing the fact.
The writer is a consumer activist
