1. Sale of defective vehicle — Discontinuation of model rendering replacement impossible — Claim for refund and compensation. (Para 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 907
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
D.P.Wadhwa : S.Saghir Ahmad
Hindustan Motors Limited
Versus
N.Siva Kumar
Case No. : of 1999
Date of Decision : 8/20/99
The manufacturer is solely liable for manufacturing defects in a vehicle, not the dealer. Additionally, repairs or partial replacements are not an adequate substitute for a new vehicle when the original product sold was defective.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Law - Liability for manufacturing defects - The liability for manufacturing defects in a vehicle must be borne by the manufacturer; the dealer cannot be held liable for such defects. (Para 5)
(B) Consumer Law - Defective vehicle - Remedy - Where a vehicle is found to be defective, an offer for repairs, including the replacement of a new engine block, is not a substitute for the supply of a new vehicle to which the consumer is legally entitled. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
The manufacturer stopped producing the specific model of the car that had been ordered to be supplied to the respondent. Consequently, the order for the supply of a new car could not be complied with. The manufacturer offered repairs and the replacement of the engine block. The lower commission had previously ordered a refund of the purchase price with interest, compensation for mental pain and agony, and costs.
Findings of Court:
The court found that a defective car had been sold to the respondent. Since the specific model was no longer being manufactured, the court directed compliance with the order for a refund of the purchase price along with interest, compensation for mental agony, and costs.
Issues: Whether the offer of repairs and engine replacement is an adequate substitute for a new car in the case of a defective vehicle, and whether the liability for manufacturing defects rests with the dealer or the manufacturer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that repairs cannot substitute a new car when the vehicle is defective. It further affirmed that the manufacturer, not the dealer, is liable for manufacturing defects.
Result: Appeal disposed of; order for refund, interest, compensation, and costs maintained.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contended that the order to supply a new car cannot be complied with as the specific model is no longer manufactured. (Para 3 )
3. Repair or replacement of components is not an adequate substitute for a new vehicle when the original product sold was defective. (Para 4 )
4. Liability for manufacturing defects in a vehicle rests with the manufacturer and not with the dealer. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal disposed of; order for refund with interest and compensation for mental agony upheld. (Para 4 , 6 )
6. Who bears the legal liability for manufacturing defects in a vehicle?
The liability for manufacturing defects in a vehicle must be borne by the manufacturer, and the dealer cannot be held liable for such defects. (Para 5 )
7. Does the offer to repair a defective vehicle constitute a valid substitute for the supply of a new car?
No, an offer for repairs, including the replacement of a new engine block, is not a substitute for a new car which the consumer is legally entitled to receive. (Para 4 )
8. What remedy is available to a consumer when a replacement vehicle cannot be supplied due to the discontinuation of the model?
When a new car cannot be supplied, the consumer is entitled to a refund of the purchase price along with interest and compensation for mental pain and agony. (Para 4 )
(1) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2) LEAVE granted.
(3) LEARNED Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has stated before us and it is also mentioned in the synopsis of facts given in the special leave petition that M/s Hindustan Motors who are the appellants before us have stopped manufacturing Ambassador NOVA model cars and, therefore, the order of the National Commission that a new car be supplied to the respondent cannot be complied with.
(4) IN this situation, we are left with no alternative except to direct that the order passed by the State Commission for the refund of Rs 1,77,200 along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the complaint till actual payment, together with a sum of Rs 50,000 as compensation for mental pain and agony, be complied with as we are fully satisfied, on the facts of the case, that the appellants had sold a defective car to the respondent and the offer of the appellants for repairs including replacement of a new engine block will not be a substitute for a new car which the respondent legally deserves to be supplied. The order of the State Commission for payment of Rs 3000 towards costs is also maintained.
(5) THE observations of the National Commission to the following effect:
"AN apprehension has been expressed by the dealer that the burden of this may ultimately fall upon the dealer. We make it clear that for the manufacturing defects in the vehicle, the dealer cannot be held liable. The liability must be borne by the manufacturer."
are also maintained.
(6) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.
