Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Honble Mr. Justice R.K. Varma, President &
Mr. N.K. Vaidya, Member
Dr. B.M. GAUR—Appellant
versus
THE PREMIER AUTOMOBILES
LTD. & ORS.—Respondents
Appeal Nos. 814, 804 & 829 of 1995—Decided on 26.7.1997
For the Appellant :Mr. S.D. Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. B. V. Bhargava & Mr. K.B. Swamy, Advocates.
A consumer forum has the authority to order a refund of the price of a defective car, even if the consumer has not specifically requested a refund in their complaint.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - SECTION 14(1)(I) - DEFECTIVE CAR - REFUND OF PRICE - INTEREST ON REFUNDED AMOUNT - JURISDICTION OF CONSUMER FORUM - MANUFACTURING DEFECTS - LIABILITY OF DEALER AND MANUFACTURER - INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS - CONSUMER'S RIGHT TO RELIEF - EVIDENCE AND BURDEN OF PROOF - CONSUMER'S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFECTIVE CAR - FORUM'S ORDER FOR REFUND OF PRICE AND INTEREST - DEALER'S APPEAL AGAINST SOLE LIABILITY - MANUFACTURER'S APPEAL ON JURISDICTION AND DELAY - CONSUMER'S APPEAL FOR ENHANCED INTEREST AND EXPENSES - ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS - DISMISSAL OF APPEALS WITH MODIFICATION FOR INTEREST ON REFUNDED AMOUNT.
Fact of the Case:
A consumer purchased a car from a dealer, paying the full price in advance. The car was delivered late and had several manufacturing defects. The consumer filed a complaint with the District Consumer Forum, which ordered the dealer to refund the price of the car and pay interest. The dealer, manufacturer, and consumer appealed the decision.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission dismissed the appeals, holding that the dealer was solely liable for the defects and delay, that the manufacturer was not liable due to lack of privity of contract, that the Forum had jurisdiction, that the delay was unreasonable, that the defects were manufacturing defects, and that the Forum had the authority to order a refund of the price.
Issues: 1. Whether the dealer was solely liable for the defects and delay, or whether the manufacturer was also liable. 2. Whether the Forum had jurisdiction to hear the complaint. 3. Whether the delay in delivery was unreasonable. 4. Whether the defects were manufacturing defects. 5. Whether the Forum had the authority to order a refund of the price.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The dealer was solely liable for the defects and delay because he had received the full price in advance and had not objected to the Forum's finding of sole liability. 2. The Forum had jurisdiction to hear the complaint because the manufacturer had not challenged the Forum's jurisdiction in its reply. 3. The delay in delivery was unreasonable because the dealer had not provided any reason for the delay. 4. The defects were manufacturing defects because the manufacturer had failed to provide any evidence to the contrary. 5. The Forum had the authority to order a refund of the price because Section 14(1)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act authorizes the Forum to order the opposite party to do one or more of the things named in the sub-paragraphs.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, with the exception that the dealer was ordered to pay interest on the refunded amount from the date of purchase to the date of refund.
Mr. N.K. Vidya/ Member—These three appeals are being decided in one order, as the order appealed against in all the three, is one and the same, being the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gwalior passed on 17.10.1995 in their Case No. 1459 of 1993 declaring Premier 118 NE Car Chassis No. 40098 Engine No. 4027 as defective and granting relief to the complainant as detailed in the said order.
2. In Appeal No. 814/95, the appellant/ complainant before the Forum has requested as under :
(i) The order granting relief has been passed by the Forum against respondent No. 3 only, whereas it should have been passed against all the three.
(ii) That he should be granted 12% interest on Rs. 2,58,970/from 1.9.1992 to 16.11.1992, which the Forum has omitted to order.
(iii) That the proceeding expenses awarded by the Forum should be enhanced.
3. In Appeal No. 804/95, the appellant (Dealer M/s. Motors Tractors) has requested as under :
(i) That the Forum has erred on holding the entire responsibility, only on the appellant (dealer of car) excluding the manufacturer and his service manager.
(ii) That the enhanced price of the car Rs. 3,003/- was charged by the appellant on behalf of the manufacturer, who has not disputed the enhancement.
(iii) That it is the manufacturer, who is responsible for delay from 10.8.1992 to 16.11.1992 in delivering the car and not the appellant.
(iv) That it is the manufacturer, who should have been held responsible for manufacturing defects and not the appellant.
(v) That in duration of eight months, car was brought to his workshop on nine occassions and every time except on the last occasion, the complainant had taken back the car with satisfactory note and yet the Forum wrongly held that the car had manufacturing defects.
(vi) That the complainant had not prayed for refund of price, but the Forum wrongly ordered refund of the price.
4. In Appeal No. 829/95, the appellant (manufacturer) has requested as under :
(i) That the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, adjudication whereof, was to be based on technical considerations.
(ii) That the delay of three months and three days in delivery of the car could not be said to be unreasonable.
(iii) That merely existence of defects, when the car was brought for repairs, does not imply that these were manufacturing defects because manufacturing defects can be ascertained only by an expert independent agency.
(iv) That the Hon'ble Forum could grant only reliefs prayed for and not beyond such prayer and therefore the Forum wrongly ordered refund of the car.
5. Heard the arguments of the appellants and respondents and perused the records of the case.
6. The Forum has granted reliefs as under to the complainant :
(i) The respondent No. 3 i.e. the dealer shall refund Rs. 2,62,970/- to the complainant, being the price paid by the complainant and on refund, the complainant shall return the defective car to the dealer.
(ii) The dealer shall pay interest on the aforesaid amount at the rate of 12% p.a. w.e.f. 16.11.1992 till the date of payment.
(iii) The dealer shall refund Rs. 3,003/- charged in excess alongwith 12% interest w.e.f. 16.11.1992 till its payment.
(iv) The dealer shall pay Rs. l.000/as proceeding expenses and Rs. 3,000/- as Advocate's tee to the complainant.
7. The undisputed facts in this case are as under :
(i) That in the quotation dated 5.8.1992, issued by dealer. Motors & Tractors, Gwalior to the complainant (Ex. P-5), the price of the car Premier 118 NE (A/C) was quoted as Rs. 2,62,967/- inclusive of transportation, temporary registration and transit insurance charges etc.
(ii) That the complainant deposited a draft for Rs. 2,58,970 with M/s. Motors & Tractors, Gwalior on 10.8.1992 and the said dealer issued Receipt No. 363 dated 10.8.1992 (Ex. P-l). The DD was payable at SBI branch, Deman.
(iii) That the dealer M/s. Motors & Tactors received in cash at Gwalior Rs. 4.000/- on account of transporation charges, vide Receipt No. 367 dated
