Honda Cars India Limited vs Sudesh Berry

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 1216

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, JJ.
Honda Cars India Limited - Appellant
Vs.
Sudesh Berry & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6802 Of 2021 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.11986/2020)
Decided On : 12-11-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jagdev Singh, Adv., Mr. Umesh Dubey, Adv., Mr. Sachin Saini, Adv., Mr. Alok Pandey, Adv., Mr. Manoj K. Mishra, AOR
For the Respondents: Mr. K.P. Berry, Mr. Abinash Kumar Mishra, AOR

Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 14 and 15 - Appeal against National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's order - Liability for vehicle repairs - Manufacturer not liable for defects post-sale if no manufacturing defect found - Dealers found responsible for unfair trade practices and deficient services - The court ruled that the National Commission erred in imposing liability on the manufacturer for providing a new vehicle. (Paras 10-14)

(B) Appeal - Principles governing manufacturer liability - A manufacturer is not liable for damages arising from an accident if the vehicle had no manufacturing defects and was used for more than a decade by the owners. (Para 12)

Facts of the case:
The respondents purchased a vehicle in 1999, which got damaged in 2010. Following the accident, they claimed deficiencies in repair services provided by the dealer and service centre.

Findings of Court:
The District Forum exonerated the manufacturer from any liability, attributing responsibility for repairs solely to the dealer and service centre.

Issues: Determination of manufacturer liability and assessment of unfair trade practices by the dealer.

Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the manufacturer is not liable for damages when a vehicle shows no manufacturing defects post-purchase, and reaffirmed the need for fairness in trade practices.

Result: Appeal allowed, National Commission's order set aside, and the original district forum's ruling restored.

Table of Content
1. challenge against national commission's order. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. district forum's observations on liability. (Para 5 , 7)
3. continuation of appeals through commission. (Para 6 , 8 , 9)
4. manufacturer's liability established. (Para 10 , 11)
5. court's justification for appeals. (Para 12 , 13)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the order dated 20.01.2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (“National Commission” for short) in Revision Petition No.2308 of 2017.

3. The appellant manufactures “Honda City Cars” and one such car was purchased by respondents no.1 to 3 herein in the year 1999. The car continued to be under their ownership and possession till 26.09.2010 when the car suffered damage in an accident which occurred at Dabri Bus Stand, New Delhi. The car was taken to the authorized service centre (respondent no.5 herein) for repairs. The car was insured and, as such, the surveyor of the insurance company found the estimated cost of repairs at the level of Rs.1,50,000/-.

4. Alleging deficiency on part of the appellant herein as well as the dealer and the service centre, respondents no.1 to 3 filed complaint no.DF.VII/261/2011/25 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum – VII, Government of NCT of Delhi (“District Forum” for short).

5. The matter was considered by the District Forum and insofar as the liability of the present appellant is concerned, it was observed thus:

“So far as OP-II is concerned, we find no material on record to fasten any liability for the conduct of the O.P.-I and O.P.-III with whom O.P.-II have allegedly only principal to principal relationship.”

Finally, directions were issued as against the dealer and the authorized service centre to the following effect:

1. Deliver the duly repaired car of the Complainants immediately after the Complainants pay the balance of the initially agreed amount of Rs.1,50,000/- i.e. Rs.1,00,000/-.

2. Pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

3. And also pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

* Order be complied within 30 days after receipt of the order.

* Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

* File, thereafter, be consigned to Record Room.”

6. Respondents no.1 to 3 being aggrieved preferred First Appeal No.154 of 2013 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission” for short). A cross appeal being First Appeal No.202 of 2013 was also preferred by the dealer and the authorized service centre.

7. The State Commission, by its judgment and order dated 16.03.2017, affirmed the view taken by the District Forum insofar as the liability of the appellant was concerned as under:

“15. So far as the case of OP No.2 is concerned, it is a manufacturing company and the complainants were not pointed out or shown any manufacturing defect to OP No.1 & 3 at the time of delivery of the damaged vehicle for repair. We are in complete agreement of the finding of the District Forum in this regard that no liability can be fixed on OP No.2.”

As regards the liability of the dealer and the authorized service centre, the State Commission observed as under:

“16. The District Forum has very rightly decided that OP No.1 & 3 are guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice for enhancing the charges of repair from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,40,000/-. The District Forum has rightly directed the complainant to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the OPs 1 & 3 who will thereafter deliver the vehicle in good condition. As far as grant of compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment is concerned, the same has been awarded by the Ld. District Forum after considering the document on record by the Ld. District Forum. The same is not on lower side as is contended by complainant. Further grant of compensation is discretion of Ld. District Forum. The same has been exercised by the Ld. District Forum

Click Here to Read the rest of this document