Law Does Not Countenance Resurrection Of Stale Claims Through Inventive Drafting: Karnataka High Court Rejects 20-Year-Old Partition Dispute CPC Provisions Cannot Be Used to Transfer Consumer Complaints Across States: NCDRC Invokes Section 62 to End Forum-Shifting Ordeal in Nirmal Spinning Mills Case FSSA Provisions Prevail Over PFA Act In Cases Of Overlapping Jurisdiction, Prosecution Under Old Act Impermissible: J&K High Court Motive Pales Into Significance When Direct Ocular Evidence Establishes Crime; Enmity Is A Double-Edged Sword: Allahabad High Court Plaintiff Cannot Succeed Merely On Weakness Of Defence; Initial Burden To Prove Claim Rests On Claimant: Madras High Court Witness Threats Noted By Higher Courts Disentitle Convict To Suspension Of Sentence: Gujarat High Court Family Court Orders Must Be Enforced Immediately, Pendency Of Applications No Excuse For Disobedience: Delhi High Court 'Fraud And Justice Never Dwell Together': Karnataka High Court Reverses Order To Grant Land Based On Fabricated Records Development Authority Competent To Sanction Land Use Conversion From Residential To Nursing Home If Permitted Under Master Plan & Zoning Regulations: Allahabad High Court Notification Changing Import Policy From 'Free' To 'Restricted' Operative Only From Exact Time Of Publication In E-Gazette: Delhi High Court On Name Of Protection of the Complainer Excluding Relevant Defence Evidence in Sexual Offences Trials May Breach Fair Trial Rights: UK Supreme Court Boundaries In Sale Deed Prevail Over Discrepancy In Property Description; Adverse Possession Begins From Date Of Hostile Notice: Punjab & Haryana HC Supreme Court of UK Upholds HMRC Decision: Professional Fees Incurred by Investment Holding Company Are Capital Expenditure Criminal Law Cannot Be Used To Silence Citizens Questioning Legality Of Police Action: Madras High Court Quashes Obstruction Case Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Centre To Treat Ashok Khemka As Empaneled For Future Assignments, Says Denying Relaxation Granted To Peers Is Discriminatory Section 34 Court Cannot Substitute Arbitrator’s Plausible View With Its Own; Not Bound By Technical Rules Of Evidence Act: Madras High Court Article 227 Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Reopen Decrees Finalized Four Decades Ago: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Challenge To 1985 Order Daughter Has No Right To Inherit Agricultural Land If Succession Opened Before 2005 HSA Amendment: Delhi High Court Rejects Plaint Indian Trust Act Inapplicable To Public Religious Endowments; Sale Of Charity Property Without HR&CE Commissioner's Permission Void: Madras High Court Supreme Court Clarifies Status of Collateral Warranties Under Construction Contracts FIR Quashed Against Newsclick: PMLA Proceedings Cannot Stand Alone Without A Predicate Offence, Rules Delhi High Court Assessee Claiming TDS Exemption On "Reimbursement" To Non-Residents Must Obtain Mandatory Tax Determination Under Section 195(2): Madras High Court

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