This story is from November 16, 2015

Consumer can get his dues from any or all liable parties

Consumer can get his dues from any or all liable parties
Jehangir B Gai
Recovery of money is sometimes more dif ficult than succee ding in a complaint, especially when some of the parties are out of the jurisdiction of the forum. In such cases, the consumer can recover the entire amount from any one of the parties.
Case Study: Urologist Dr Brij Mohan Das Gupta purchased an Utramark 9 Color Doppler Machine manufactured by CCE Canada Commercial Exchange through its Indian representative, Potential Medical System, at a cost of $14,121.
Since it was defective, Dr Gupta complained to the district forum, seeking a refund, along with compensation and costs.
The forum ruled in Dr Gupta's favour and held both the manufacturer and the Indian representative jointly and severally liable to either remove the defect or replace the machine, or refund $14,121 in Indian Rupees, with 9% interest, and awarded him Rs 50,000 compensation and Rs 2,000 in costs.
Potential Medicals Systems challenged this order before the Uttar Pradesh state commission, which modified the order, retaining only the direction to refund the price along with interest. Dismissing the appeal, it also awarded the doctor an extra Rs 11,000 in costs.
The Indian representative then filed a revision before the National Commission. To settle the matter, the company offered a refurbished machine with two probes. The doctor accepted this proposal if it would be carried out in a time-bound period. The refurbished machine was to be supplied within four months. In case of delay, the settlement would stand nullified and the order passed by the state commission would become enforceable.

The refurbished machine was supplied, but the doctor said this unit too was defective. He then filed execution proceedings for a refund with interest.The company contested, saying that he was not entitled to a refund as a refurbished machine had been supplied to him. These execution proceedings finally reached the National Commission, which then observed that the doctor had not signed the report, which revealed that the doppler unit was defective. A freelance engineer's opinion was sought, who stated that since the refurbished machine was over 10 years old, it could not give a better image.
The commission pointed out that while a refurbished machine was bound to be old, it had to be defect-free and with all the features of the new machine. Accordingly , it held that the execu tion proceedings were maintainable to seek a refund of the machine's purchase price.
Potential Medical Systems then tried to minimize its liability, arguing that it could not be held liable to refund the entire amount and the liability should be equally apportioned, instead of all the parties being jointly and severally held liable. However, the commission held that a complainant was free to recover the entire decretal amount from any , or all of the parties jointly held liable. Accordingly , by its order of October 28, 2015, delivered by Justice V K Jain, the commission dismissed the revision. Potential Medical Systems was liable to refund the entire amount, upon which the doctor would return the defective machines.
Conclusion:
When more than one opposite party against whom a case is filed is held jointly liable, it is up to the consumer to choose whether to recover the amount from all of them or any one of them. This makes recovery easy , especially when some of the opposite parties are abroad or difficult to locate.
End of Article
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA