Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

Right to Repair-Mandatory for Manufacturers to offer repair services for smartphones, consumer durables and automobile products

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The government will mandate that manufacturers of automobiles, cell phones, and other consumer goods share product information so that consumers can perform repairs themselves or hire third parties.

In a statement released on Thursday, the Department of Consumer Affairs announced the formation of a committee chaired by Nidhi Khare, an additional secretary, to develop a framework for "Right to Repair." Wednesday was the first time the committee met to identify sectors for the right.

The sectors identified include farming equipment, mobile phones/ tablets, consumer durables, and automobiles/automobile equipment. According to the concept of 'Right to Repair,' customers must possess a product in its entirety after purchase. "...consumers should be able to easily and affordably repair and modify their products without being subject to the whims of manufacturers," according to the statement.

The framework aims to empower consumers, standardise trade between original equipment manufacturers and third-party buyers and sellers, and reduce e-waste, according to the statement.

The rationale behind the 'Right to Repair' is that when customers purchase a product, it is inherent that they must own it in its entirety. Therefore, consumers should be able to repair and modify the product without being subject to the whims of manufacturers.

Nevertheless, manufacturers typically retain proprietary control over spare parts, including their design, and the government believes that this type of monopoly on repair processes violates the "right to choose" of the customer.

"Manufactures promote a culture of "planned obsolescence." This is a system in which the design of any device is such that it only lasts for a certain amount of time, after which it must be replaced. When contracts fail to transfer complete control to the buyer, the legal rights of the seller are compromised "The committee stated in its initial meeting.

LocalCircles, a community network, discovered in a previous survey that 43% of Indian households have three or more devices or gadgets that are less than five years old and require service or repair.

The right to repair has been recognised in many nations around the world, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union.

In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission has instructed manufacturers to end unfair anticompetitive practises and to ensure that consumers can perform repairs themselves or through a third party.

Latest Legal News