Defected vehicle sold by dealer, who is to be responsible ?
Head Notes
“When a consumer buys a vehicle, he expects it to be free of defects and in good working order. If a vehicle encounters problems within the first few months, it suggests that there may be an inherent issue with it. It is of no consequence whether the defect was the responsibility of the manufacturer or the dealer, as far as their liability goes, they will be jointly and severally liable for selling a defective vehicle to the consumer”
(Case Law Tayal India Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs Jogender Sharma Through Lrs. & 2 Ors. (National Consumer Disputes Redressal) Decided on 25 October, 2024)
Reference Case : Maruti Suzuki India Limited vs. Dr. Koneru Satya Kishore & Ors., 2018 SCC CPJ 157 “If the vehicle suffered from defects as evidence by repeated requested visits to the workshop then vehicle qualified to be called manufacturing defect and it was the duty of a manufacturer and provide the vehicle to complainant in a road worthy condition ”
FACTS:
Diesel vehicle “Tata Safari Dicor Quartz” was purchased from Tayal India Motors Limited on 06.07.2007 for a sum of Rs.7,25,617/- The vehicle experienced problems just 980 km/ 5-6 days after purchase, prompting the Complainant to take it to the service centre of Tayal India Motors Ltd. on 10.07.2007 before raising the present complaint. The Job Card had been created. After a few days, the vehicle had to be towed back on 23.07.2007, and it was again brought to the Tata Motors service centre in Ambala, Metro Motors on 01.08.2007. The vehicle was sent from the authorized service centre of Tata Motors Pvt. Ltd., Metro Motors, Ambala to Tayal Motors in Faridabad on 10.08.2018. Complainant, respondent in the present appeal case visited the service centre multiple times on 10.07.2007, 23.07.2007, and 01.08.2007, all during the warranty period. The Job Cards of Metro Motors, Ambala which is on record with the District Commission also listed the defects in vehicle. The vehicle has been lying with Tayal Motors Pvt Ltd. since 10.08.2007
District Forum had allowed the Complaint filed by Respondent No.1/ Complainant, Jogender Sharma (since expired) and ordered replacement of the vehicle on the ground of manufacturing defect or in the alternative jointly and severally refund the value of the vehicle being Rs.7,25,617/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum.
Appeal before the State Commission with the following objections and argued
• The Complainant brought the vehicle on 23.07.2007 to the Petitioner’s workshop with an issue of cold starting, engine light come, headlight and door noise. The vehicle was returned after the completion of necessary repairs.
• The vehicle was brought in again on 06.08.2007 after repairs by Metro Motors. The last repair was performed by Metro Motors, and the vehicle had not been fully repaired. The Complainant also did not conduct a test drive following the repairs made by Metro Motors.
• The Dealer bears no liability, as it is not the manufacturer. The Dealer relied on the order of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Anr vs. N. Siva Kumar and Another, (2000) 10 Supreme Court Cases 654.requested delivery of the vehicle at Faridabad but never came to collect it.
• The State Commission President and one Member themselves inspected the vehicle and prepared an “Inspection Note”, on the basis of which the decision was rendered in favour of the Complainant on the ground of there being a manufacturing defect. Though in a strict sense they may not be termed as ‘expert’ but their report also cannot be ignored altogether.
State Commission vide Order dated 26.08.2011 dismissed the Appeals with the following observations:-
“We are not in agreement the plea taken by the opposite parties, because the defects in the vehicle developed due to the manufacturing defect of the vehicle. In any case the defects developed within a week of its purchase. The manufacturer cannot wash its hands of raising plea that vehicles are transferred to dealer on principal-to-principal basis, as the warranty is by manufacturer and not of dealer. If any defect develops during warranty or some manufacturing defect is noticed during warranty, it is the manufacturer who is liable for replacement under warranty conditions.”
National Commission on 25 October, 2024 Dismissed Revision Petitions
• The vehicle is lying with the Dealer since 10.08.2007. More than 17 years have passed since the purchase of the vehicle by the Complainant. No purpose would be served even if any repairs are carried out at this time. Further, since the manufacturing of this model of vehicle i.e. TATA Dicor Quartz may have already been stopped by the Manufacturer, the only remedy available to the Complainant is to receive a refund of the cost price of the vehicle.
• It is a well-established principle that this Commission has limited jurisdiction to interfere in the concurrent findings of the District Forum and State Commission except for any patent illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error. I would like to cite the following Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard:
Rajiv Shukla v. Gold Rush Sales & Services Ltd., (2022) 9 SCC 31 decided on 08.09.2022, wherein it was held as under:
“In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record.
Order by NCDRC
After giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the present Revision Petitions are dismissed. The Orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are partly upheld
“When a consumer buys a vehicle, he expects it to be free of defects and in good working order. If a vehicle encounters problems within the first few months, it suggests that there may be an inherent issue with it. It is of no consequence whether the defect was the responsibility of the manufacturer or the dealer, as far as their liability goes, they will be jointly and severally liable for selling a defective vehicle to the consumer”
following directions to the Dealer & manufacture :-
The Petitioners jointly and severally shall pay to the legal heirs of the Complainant an amount of Rs.7,25,617/- i.e. sale price of the Car along with interest @ 6% w.e.f. filing of the Complaint till the date of actual payment within six weeks of this Order, failing which the rate of interest shall stand enhanced to 9% per annum for the same period.
The Petitioners shall also pay Rs.25,000/- to the legal heirs of the Complainant as litigation cost.
