I am getting married but having been married before, I have a lot of experience on what should be done right, and what can go wrong. Most importantly though, I have learnt there is at least three sides to any story: Your side, my side and the truth. Which brings us to today’s court proceedings:
A consumer wrote to Consumer Court about a Cellular tablet that was purchased from a retailer in Ausspannplatz. According to the consumer, the tablet started giving off an electrical burning smell after she inserted a Secure Digital (SD) memory card [see Tablet Explode complaint story on the side]. It must be noted that the specific SD card was not purchased from the retailer that sold the tablet.
Consumer Court visited the retailer concerned and spoke to the manager about this specific event. The tablet in question was still in the repair shop and we were able to investigate the equipment ourselves. Upon opening the tablet, it was immediately noticeable that there was a burn mark where the input port was for the SD card. However, no other burning on the motherboard or elsewhere was visible. The screen itself is situated on the opposite side of the phone, with the motherboard between it and the SD port.
The manager showed us the repaired screen (at their own cost) even though it is very unlikely that an event such as a burning port would cause the screen to crack. Nevertheless, the manager felt is was the least they could do to ensure a satisfied customer. Consumer Court insisted the phone be switched on and tested a different SD card in the port. The card worked perfectly and was able to read the information on the card.
This leads to the conclusion that the consumer’s SD card caused the damage (the card itself was not provided by the consumer to have it tested).
Now we must ask: what is the responsibility of the retailer in a case like this? What can a consumer expect when an electronic product shows a defect when interacting with parts from other devices or appliances?
Consumer Court received a copy of the warranty form from the retailer that is supplied to each client with each product purchased. It is clear that the client did not check the conditions before making the complaint to the Consumer Court. If she had, she would have been more than satisfied that the retailer had repaired the screen and checked that there were no defects on the product sold. Unfortunately liability was limited when the consumer inserted a device which had not been tested for compatibility or even been tested to working before inserting into the tablet.
This is one of the hardest consumer cases to make as the consumer had combined two products from two different manufacturers without surety that they were compatible and thus it is impossible for any third party to decide which party is guilty. In such a case, Consumer Court can only recommend the retailer does its best to fix the device or product in question and provide it with a minimum guarantee that it will meet the expected work conditions of the consumer for the rest of the period as per the warranty. The consumer can thus only reasonably accept the repaired product as there is no clear liability on behalf of the retailer or manufacturer.
In any relationship, resentment is built up when we feel wronged but sometimes we must question also what our duties and responsibilities to the relationship and what we may have done differently.
*Milton Louw is a consumer activist and prolific blogger on consumer protection issues (http://milton-louw.blogspot.com). He serve as the voluntary director at Namibia Consumer Protection Group.