Defects and Deficiencies Goods and Services

Defect in Goods

Section 2(1)(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 defines defect in goods. The defect is defined as any imperfection, fault, a shortcoming in certain parameters of the good which are as follows:

• Quality
• Quantity
• Purity
• Potency
• Standard

The above has a level that needs to be maintained by or under any law in force at that time.

Hence, if any good is not up to the mark or is faulty, that is, does not meet the mark of the laws applicable in the particular period, it is defective.

illustrations of Defective Good

• A consumer purchases a washing machine. It has a wiring problem which results in the destruction of all the clothes put in the machine.
• A consumer purchases a cosmetic product that causes irritation to the skin.
• A consumer purchases a handbag. After purchase, he sees a slit at the bottom of the bag.
• A consumer purchases milk that has been adulterated by mixing with water.
• A consumer purchase socks made of a fabric that causes skin infection.

A defect of Good seen in numerous cases due to its wide ambit. Defects can be present in goods irrespective of their size, shape, colour, dimension, state of matter and so on. The defect in service often causes inconvenience, injury and in aggravated cases, death. Producers of goods must be immensely careful of the goods that are being manufactured by them.

Safety is a major concern which is sought after by all consumers across the globe. A small defect in good can cause a great impact on the consumer who can face a damage. This damage includes physical, mental and economic loss.

Cases of the defect in goods are too many to count and have rapidly increased with the introduction of online shopping. The Consumer Protection Act tries to limit these grievances of the consumers by penalizing the producers of such goods. It is the much-required means of providing justice to those consumers who have been at a loss or inconvenience.

Cases of Defect

Laxmi Engineering Works vs P.S.G. Industrial Institute, Abhay Kumar Panda v. Bajaj Auto Limited and various other cases that resulted in major debates were initially filed as cases for the defect in good. The former saw a defect in a machine while the latter saw a defect in a vehicle purchased. Other prominent cases include Kevin Enterprise vs Joint Cit, and cases at the Supreme Court, Union Of India (Uoi) vs Ratilal Jadavji and Union Of India vs Behari Lal And Co.

These cases show the repercussions of defective goods. While the first two cases resulted in a whole new deliberation upon the definition of the consumer, the later cases were all under the ambit of defective goods. However, all these case complaints find its root in the good received being defective, hence highlighting its meaning and importance.

Online Shopping and Defect in Goods

Online shopping is a recent development in the market. It has introduced a new and modern style of interaction between consumers and sellers by benefitting both consumers and sellers. The consumers find online shopping extremely convenient while the sellers now have a wider access for sale of their products. However, this development in the global sphere also has its repercussions. It has brought in a large number of complaint of defective goods.

In many cases, the good purchased online looks nothing like what was portrayed of the product. Goods have arrived broken, faulty in design, torn, adulterated, impure and so forth. This is a great hurdle in Consumer Protection and is a problem that remains unsolved today.

Online shopping has turned disastrous to the consumer in cases like Anil Kumar v. M/s Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Gati Limited, Vinodkumar, Ernakulam Vs. Shoed Merchant, Mumbai & Ebay India and the Chitra Vittal case.

Sellers must take care while sending their goods for transit. The goods should be handled with care during the transportation process. The sellers should not attempt to cheat the consumers by intentionally handing over defective goods to them.

Deficiency of Service

Deficiency of Service sprawls across various fields like medicine, construction, transport and so on. Deficiency in service often causes inconvenience, injury and in aggravated cases, death. Services are to be provided by immensely equipped individuals with utmost proficiency. If services are not provided with care, severe damage can be caused to the receiver. This damage includes physical, mental and economic loss.

Cases of deficiency of service are rampant in India due to inefficiency and negligence. The Consumer Protection Act is a way to penalise curb this lax behaviour and curb negligent activities in future. It is the much-required means of providing justice to those consumers who have been at a loss or inconvenience.

The field of medicine has seen the most complaints, ranging from Ayesha Begum v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences to the famous Indian Medical Association v. V.P. Shantha. The former dealt with a wrong diagnosis leading to economic loss and physical weakness, while the latter argued upon the distinction of the contract of service and contract for service. Other cases in this field include Gulam Abdul Hussain v. Katta Pullaiah Choudhary and Consumer Unity and Trust Society Vs. State of Rajasthan.

The field of construction to has seen cases of deficiency of service, as noted in the case, Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta. The field of tailoring involves A.C. Monday v. Cross Well Tailor And Anr.

These cases are the various instances where the Indian law rightly intervened and redressed the consumers. It poses as a strong deterrent to all those service providers who indulge in fraudulent or negligent means of operation.

Contract of Service of Contract for Service

As clearly mentioned in the definition of service, a contract of service is excluded from service. But what does this term actually mean? The concepts are as follows:

A Contract of Service involves an employer and an employee, similar to a master-servant relationship. All the actions of the employee are monitored, controlled and regulated by the employer. The employee acts on the directions of the employer, hence he is told what task to do and precisely how to do it.Hence, the employee is not personally liable for the acts done by him. The employee can be hired and fired at any time, on the discretion of the employer. The acts of an employee arising out of a contract of service is not a service and hence cannot be deficient.